display_pdf-5

1 Sessions Case No.
173 of 2019
Received on : 16.04.2019.
Registered on : 16.04.2019.
Decided on : 13.05.2021.
Duration : 2Y. 0M. 27D.
Exh. No.______
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
JALGAON..AT..JALGAON
(Presided over by P. Y. Ladekar )
SESSIONS CASE NO.173 OF 2019
(CNR NO.MHJG040014022019)
The State of Maharashtra
The Police Station Officer, COMPLAINANT
Jamner Police Station,
Taluka Jamner District Jalgaon.
Vs.
1] Bharat Lalsingh Patil,
Age 42 Yrs.,
R/o Supari Bag, Jamner,
Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon. ACCUSED
2] Lalsingh Shripat Patil,
Age 74 Yrs.,
R/o Belkhede, Taluka Bhusawal
District Jalgaon.

Shri. K.J. Dhake, Learned P.P. for State.
Shri S.K. Shirude, Learned Advocate for accused.

JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 13th Day of May, 2021)
On a self nurtured doubt a saviour of life (doctor) has

muzzled his spouse a protector of law (advocate) and claiming benefit
of doubt.
2 Sessions Case No.173 of 2019
2] Prosecution case against the accused as per complaint

Exh.63 and F.I.R. Exh.64 filed by Ganesh Suradkar P.W.1 at Jamner
Police Station on 14.01.2019 is that he is residing at Aurangabad
along with his family and working as Agricultural Officer at Sillod,
District Aurangabad. Rakhi alias Vidya Bharat Patil was his cousin
and she was married to the accused No.1 Dr. Bharat Patil of Belkhed,
Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon and both of them were residing at
Supari Bag, Jamner. Rakhi was Assistant Police Prosecutor at
Jalgaon and in connection of her job, she has to talk with the clients,
other advocates on mobile and on that count there use to be
altercation with the accused No.1. She used to tell it to him whenever
they would meet and he would convince her to tolerate.
3] On 13.01.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., his wife Vaishali

informed him that Priya Pramod Patil, real sister of Rakhi, informed
her that Rakhi has expired because of electric shock, therefore,
immediately he along with his family and other relatives proceeded
towards Jamner. When they were on the way, his cousin Vikas Jadhav
informed him on phone that for the last rites of Rakhi, they should
directly come to Belkhed, Taluka Bhusawal. On reaching Belkhed,
when he asked the relatives about the death of Rakhi, they informed
him that she got heart attack. Then he asked her inlaws whether
postmortem has been carried out to which they said no. Thereafter,
when they saw the dead body of Rakhi, they noticed that she was
having injuries on her throat, chin, face, nose, middle finger of right
hand, wrist and as they were suspecting those injuries, they insisted
for postmortem. But at that time, the accused No.1 and accused No.2
who is his father have flatly refused and then with the help of police of
Varangaon Police Station, he gave information to that police station.
4] Based on it, Varangaon Police registered A.D.No.0 of 2019

as per Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Then Varangaon
Police carried out inquest panchanama of the corpse and forwarded it
to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon for postmortem. After the postmortem when
they asked the doctor, the doctor informed them that she died because
of pressing her thorat, nose and mouth. Then her dead body was taken
to Belkhed and last rites performed. On the basis of this complaint,
offence under sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code was registered
against both the accused and investigation was carried out by P.W.17
P.I. Ingle of Jamner Police Station. During the course of investigation,
both the accused were arrested and on completion of investigation,
chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Jamner.
5] Learned Magistrate committed the case as per provision

under section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure for trial by this
Court.
6] After hearing learned P.P. and learned advocate for the

accused, the accused No.1 has been arraigned for the offence under
section 302 of Indian Penal Code and both the accused have been
arraigned for the offence under section 302, 201 read with section 34
of Indian Penal Code. The accused have pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
7] In support of the case, prosecution has examined total 19

witnesses and relying on various documents like C.A. reports, C.D.Rs.,
postmortem report, photographs and panchanamas. Out of 19
witnesses, P.W.1 Ganesh Suradkar, P.W.2 Malanbai Suryavanshi,
P.W.3 Mohansingh Patil, P.W.6 Suraj Patil, P.W.10 Durvesh Patil,
P.W.11 Priya alias Priyatama Solanke are the relatives of the accused
No.1 and the deceased. P.W.4 Dr. Rahul Jawale and P.W.5 Dr. Rajesh
Manwatkar from Bhusawal, P.W.8 Vipul Patel, Driver of Ecco Vehicle,
P.W.6 Suraj Patil have seen the dead body as it was carried in the
vehicle of Vipul from Jamner to Bhusawal. P.W.12 Dr. Swapnil
Kalaskar of Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and P.W.14 Dr. Harshal Chanda
of SubDistrict Hospital, Jamner have carried out pre arrest and post
arrest medical check up of accused No.1 and found minor injuries on
his body.
8] P.W.13 A.P.I. Sarika Kodape has registered A.D. at

Varangaon Police Station, carried out inquest panchanama and sent
the dead body to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon for postmortem and sent all
the investigation papers to Jamner Police Station. P.W.15 Supriya
Kisharsagar, A.P.P. was friend of the deceased and P.W.19 Advocate
Dnyaneshwar Borse was senior advocate with whom deceased Rakhi
started practice at Jamner. P.W.7 Bhaskar Tayade is the Panch of
Spot Panchanama and Seizure Panchanama of the clothes of the
accused. P.W.16 Nitesh Patil is a photographer of the photographs of
the injuries of accused No.1, spot of incident and Ecco vehicle No.MH
19/CU2375. P.W.18 Dr.Nilesh Devraj has conducted autopsy and
prepared crime scene report after visiting the spot of incident. P.W.17
Pratap Ingle is the Investigating Officer.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE :
9] Apart from the complaint Exh.63 and F.I.R. Exh.64, the

prosecution is relying on the information Exh.62 which was filed at
Varangaon Police Station based on which A.D.No.00/2019 was
registered and inquest memo Exh.66 of the deceased was prepared
before P.W.2 Malanbai by P.W.13 A.P.I. Sarika Kodape. The clothes of
the deceased were seized as per seizure memo Exh.68 and the clothes
are red colour Odhani Article1 with its envelope Article1/1, blue
colour Kurta Article2 having design in red green colour with its
envelope Article2/1, pink petticoat Article3 with its envelope Article
3/1, white colour brassiere and slip Article4 and Article5 with their
envelopes Article4/1 and Article5/1, blue colour printed knicker
Article6 with its envelope Article6/1, red black colour printed sari
Article7 with envelope Article7/1. Out of these clothes the most
important incriminating cloth is red colour Odhani Article1.
10] The spot panchanama Exh.74 of the house of accused No.1

at Jamner along with google location as per longitude and latitude of
the house as well as seizure of the Lenovo Company silver colour
mobile Article8 with its envelope Article8/1 of the deceased of which
the screen was borken and body was bent and pillow cover Article9
with envelope Article9/1 on which there was red colour mark. Like
Odhani Article1, the pillow cover Article9 is another important
incriminating article. Similarly, the jeans pant Article10 and the
broken upper button shirt Article11 of the accused No.1 kept in
envelopes Article10/1 and Article11/1 have been seized as per seizure
memo Exh.75. Statement under section 164 of Code of Criminal
Procedure of P.W.8 Vipul recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Jamner which has been marked as Exh.77 for the purpose
of identification. Seizure panchanama Exh.79 of the white ring
Article12 kept in a small box Article12/1 seized from Ecco vehicle of
P.W.8 and also the grey colour seat cover Article13 with its envelope
Article13/1 on which there was a blood mark. Statement under
Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure of Priya P.W.11 recorded by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamner and marked Exh.82
for the purpose of identification.
11] Letter Exh.86 for pre arrest medical check up of accused

No.1, injury certificate Exh.87 about the injuries found on the person
of accused No.1. Letter Exh.89 by P.W.13 A.P.I. Kodape to Medical
Officer, Varangaon for postmortem along with endorsement of the
doctor that it can be done at Jalgaon and then her letter Exh.90
addressed to Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. She also sent all
the documents of her A.D. Investigation to Jamner Police Station
along with letter Exh.91. Letter Exh.93 to Medical Officer, Jamner for
post arrest medical examination of the accused No.1 and the medical
report Exh.94 of the doctor. The doctors who have carried out pre and
post arrest check up of the accused No.1 have found 9 minor injuries
on the person of accused No.1. Application for leave Exh.96 submitted
by A.P.P. Smt. Supriya and assignment of her charge to the deceased
during her absence including on 13.01.2019 i.e. the date of the
incident.
12] The photographs Exh.98 to Exh.103 along with certificate

Exh.104 under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act depicting the
injuries on the body of accused No.1 noticed before he was arrested.
Similarly, the photographs Exh.105 to Exh.110 along with certificate
Exh.104 as per Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are the
photographs of the house of accused No.1 showing the bedroom and in
particular scattered clothes and bed sheet on the bed as well as pillow
covered by pillow cover Article9. The photographs Exh.111 to Exh.115
along with certificate Exh.116 under section 65B of the Indian

Evidence Act are the photographs of Ecco vehicle depicting the ring
Article12 lying in the vehicle and the seat cover Article13 indicating
small patch of blood. The bill of the photographs is at Exh.117.
13] Order Exh.120 of P.W.17 Pratap Ingle directing Police

Head Constable Kishor Patil to secure the spot of incident. Station
diary entry Exh.121 of Varangaon Police Station about registering
A.D. Case. Letter Exh.122 to Government Hospital, Jalgaon by P.W.17
Pratap Ingle requesting for the photographs and postmortem report of
the deceased. The photographs of the deceased are at Exh.123 to
Exh.128 wherein the condition of the body of the deceased in
particular her face and throat area and injuries found on that area as
well as middle finger of right hand are visible. In photographs
Exh.123, Exh.124, Exh.126 and Exh.127 the face, lips, ears of the
deceased indicated blue black colour of the skin clearly distinguishable
from other part of the body skin which is very fair in colour.
14] Arrest Memo of accused No.1 is at Exh.129, letter Exh.130

to the two panchas to attend Jamner Police Station for seizure of
clothes of the deceased on 15.01.2019, receipt Exh.130 by which the
clothes of the deceased have been deposited in the muddemal room of
Jamner Police Station. Letter dated 15.01.2019 Exh.132 to
Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Jalgaon for inspection of crime scene
and photographs by doctors, letter Exh.133 to Agriculture Officer,

Jamner for deputing two panchas, letter Exh.134 to Mobile Forensic
Unit, Jalgaon for visiting the spot of incident and submitting report of
the Forensic Experts. Letter Exh.135 of Agriculture Officer, Jamner
deputing two panchas along with office order. Letter Exh.136 to the
panchas by the Investigating Officer.
15] Station diary entry Exh.137 about proceeding to spot of

incident on 15.01.2019 and Exh.138 about coming back to police
station from the spot of incident. Exh.139 is the log book of the vehicle
used for the said purpose. Exh.140 is the receipt by which the mobile
and pillow cover seized from the spot deposited in the Muddemal
Room of Police Station and receipt Exh.141 is about deposit of clothes
of Accused No.1 at Muddemal Room of Police Station. Letter Exh.142
is the crime scene report prepared by Dr. Devraj P.W.18 and Dr.
Swapnil Kalaskar. Exh.143 is crime scene visit report prepared by
Mobile Forensic Support Unit, Jalgaon. Exh.144 is the consent given
by accused No.1 for taking the samples of his blood and nail clippings.
Letter Exh.145 addressed to Medical Officer, Jamner for collecting
those samples.
16] Letter Exh.146 addressed to Land Survey Office, Jamner

for services of two panchas. Letter Exh.147 is the appointment order
of two panchas by Land Survey Office, Jamner, Exh.148 is the notice
to the panchas. Exh.149 is station diary entry dated 17.01.2019 about

proceeding to the spot where the Ecco vehicle was kept. Muddemal
receipt Exh.150 is about deposit of ring and seat cover collected from
the vehicle. Station diary entry Exh.151 is about coming back to Police
Station after the said work. Letters Exh.152 and Exh.153 addressed to
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon for recording statements under
sections 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure of the witnesses. Exh.154,
Exh.155, Exh.156 and Exh.157 are the chain of custody forms of
muddemal seized in the crime. Letter Exh.158 addressed to Principal
of Bhausaheb Hire Medical College, Dhule forwarding one sealed
packet of viscera of the deceased for hystopathology Report. Letters
Exh.159, Exh.160, Exh.161, Exh.162, Exh.165 and Exh.164 by which
the seized muddemal property and samples have been forwarded to
Forensic Laboratory, Nashik. C.A. Report Exh.165 is about not finding
any poison in the viscera of the deceased.
17] C.A. Report Exh.166 is about obtaining controlled female

DNA profile of the hair of the deceased. C.A. Report Exh.167 is about
obtaining Controlled male DNA profile from the nail clippings of
accused No.1. C.A. Reports Exh.168 and Exh.192 indicate that blood
group of the accused No.1 is 'B'. C.A. Report Exh.170 indicates that
the deceased had blood group 'O'. C.A. Report Exh.171 indicates that
no blood or tissue matter was detected on the nail clippings of the
deceased. C.A. Report Exh.172 indicate no semen was detected in the
vaginal swab of the deceased. Vide letter Exh.173 C.A. Reports were
forwarded to Medical Officer, Jalgaon who has carried out postmortem
with a request to give final opinion of cause of death. Exh.174 is the
arrest form of accused No.2.
18] Letters Exh.175 and Exh.176 are addressed to

Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon for C.D.Rs. of the mobile phones of
the deceased, accused Nos.1 and 2 and C.D.Rs. are part of Exh.176. As
per these two exhibits mobile Nos. 7020938679, 9372252121 and
9421522121 were in the name of accused No.1 but the mobile
Nos.9372252121 and 7020938679 were used by deceased and mobile
No.9421023067 is in the name of accused No.2 which was used to
communicate with P.W.11 Priya and P.W.8 Vipul. Mobile Number of
Vipul is 9923417179, mobile number of Priya is 7020584760 whereas
mobile number of P.W.19 Advocate Dnyaneshwar Borse is
9423904013. The C.D.Rs. of the mobile used by the deceased and
accused No.2 indicate location of the mobile of the deceased and
accused No.2 on 13th January 2019. Letter Exh.177 is for collecting the
C.D.Rs. of the mobiles of P.W.11 Priya and two other female relatives
of the deceased who are not examined by the prosecution. Letter
Exh.178 is addressed to the Assistant Director of Prosecution, Jalgaon
by the Investigating Officer and collected official information Exh.179
about the duties assigned to the deceased by the said office indicating
therein that on the fateful day the deceased was holding the charge of
P.W.15 Supriya for attending holiday remand work.
19] Exh.186 is provisional postmortem report/cause of death

certificate wherein the cause of death was mentioned as throttling
associated with smothering. Exh.186 is the postmortem report,
Exh.187 is the final postmortem certificate stating cause of death as
throttling associated with smothering. Exh.188 is HystoPathology
report of the deceased. Exh.189 is the C.A. Report about depicting
Calcium and Irons in the white material of the viscera. C.A. Report
Exh.190 is about the examination of 11 glass slide stickings of the
injuries on the face of the deceased along with Odhani and pillow
cover and stating therein that the fibers detected on the slides
microscopically appears to be similar with the fibers derived from the
Odhani and Pillow cover. C.A. Report Exh.191 indicates that the
sample was haemolysed and hence unsuitable for blood groping.
20] Thereafter, statements of the accused under section 313 of

Code of Criminal Procedure have been recorded. The accused have
admitted their relationship with the deceased as well as the witnesses
who are relatives of the deceased and the accused. The accused have
also not denied their identification by the witnesses. They also
admitted that the accused No.1, deceased and their son Durvesh
P.W.10 were residing together at Supari Bag, Jamner and their
another son was residing in a hostel at Buldhana and accused No.1
has done M.D.E.H. and he is a Doctor. The accused No.1 also admitted
about taking the deceased from Jamner to the hospitals at Bhusawal.
He also admitted that P.W.11 Priya is real sister of the deceased and
resides at Aurangabad. He also admitted that on the date of the
incident, there was engagement ceremony in the house opposite to his
house. He admitted that Mobile Number 7020938679 was used by the
accused. He also admitted that Priya and other relatives reached at
Belkhed at 11.00 p.m. on 13.01.2019. The accused No.1 also admitted
that P.W.16 Nitesh Patil is a photographer and has a photography
studio at Jamner and before arrest he clicked his photographs on
14.01.2019. About his injuries, the accused No.1 has stated that they
were caused by P.W.1 Ganesh Suradkar.
21] The accused No.1 has denied rest of the evidence and in
his written statement of defence Exh.199 he has submitted that he
was married to the deceased in May 2000. His elder son Durvesh is
aged about 17 years and younger son Namit is aged about 15 years.
On 29.05.2017 the deceased had undergone tubectomy operation at
Jalgaon and he has produced that certificate dated 10.03.2021 along
with his statement. He submitted that till the end, his married life
was happy and joyful. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.11 are
relatives of the deceased and P.W.15 is close friend of the deceased
and therefore, they gave false evidence against him.
22] He has also submitted that on 13.01.2019 his son Durvesh

informed him on phone that condition of deceased is not good and
therefore, with a view to give her good treatment and recovery, he

took her to the hospital of Dr. Rahul Jawale P.W.4 who after
examining Rakhi told him that her condition is critical and take her to
a big hospital. Then he went to 23 hospitals but could not get doctors.
So, finally he took his wife to the hospital of Dr. Manwatkar P.W.5
where his wife was admitted in Intensive Care Unit, first aid was
given and doctor told him that she is dead. As per this accused, he
tried to save his wife but could not succeed.
23] He also submitted that on 14.01.2019 at 02.00 a.m. P.W.1

Ganesh came at Belkhed. He raised doubt against him and then
picked up altercation and then assaulted him, scratched him,
therefore, he sustained injuries on his face and body and button of his
shirt was broken because Ganesh pulled him.
24] The accused No.2, in his written statement of defence

Exh.200, has denied his involvement in the crime. He stated that the
accused No.1 along with his wife, children were residing at Jamner
and he is residing at Belkhed and about the death he had promptly
informed the parents and sisters as well as other relatives of the
deceased. Both the accused have stated that false evidence is adduced
against them by the witnesses.
25] Following points came up for determination and findings

of this court thereon are for the reasons as under.
Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS
01. Whether prosecution has proved that the
deceased Rakhi alias Vidya Bharat Patil was
done to homicidal death ? ... Yes.
02. Whether prosecution proved that on
13.01.2019 at about 01.30 p.m. accused No.1
Bharat Lalsingh Patil in his residential house
No.3270/2 situated at Supari Bag, Jamner,
Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon intentionally
caused bodily injuries to the deceased Rakhi
alias Vidya Bharat Patil by pressing her
mouth, neck and nose with intention to kill
her or with knowledge that it would in all
probability cause her death and killed her ? ... Yes.
03. Whether prosecution proved that on the
aforesaid date, time and place, accused Nos.1
and 2 in furtherance of their common
intention knowing that offence of murder of
Rakhi alias Vidya Bharat Patil punishable
with life or death sentence having been
committed, did cause certain evidence to
disappear by taking the dead body of the
deceased for cremation with intention of
screening themselves from legal punishment ? ... Yes.
04. What order ? ... As per final
order.
REASONS
ARGUMENTS
26] I have heard learned P.P. Shri K.J. Dhake and learned
Advocate Shri S.K. Shirude for both the accused. Learned advocate for
the accused has also submitted written notes of arguments.
27] Learned P.P. Submitted that the case of the prosecution is

based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has established
beyond reasonable doubt through 19 witnesses that on 13.01.2019, the
accused No.1 and the deceased were in their house at Supari Bag,
Jamner. The spot of incident is inside the house. The deceased was
seen alive by her son Durvesh P.W.10 when he along with his
grandmother left the house and the accused Nos.1, 2 and the deceased
were in the house. Thereafter, Durvesh came back in the evening
along with his grandmother. The accused No.1 was not in the house.
Accused No.2 was present. He informed Durvesh that his mother has
vomited and she is lying in the bedroom and when Durvesh saw his
mother, she was totally unmoved and was having injury on her chin.
He rang up accused No.1 who went to fetch the Ecco vehicle and then
they took the deceased to Bhusawal and then to Belkhed and were in
the process of cremation without postmortem.
28] The evidence of the witnesses is supported by the

circumstantial evidence that the body was in the bedroom of the
house. The clothes were scattered, the injuries were caused to the
deceased inside the house and the accused has no explanation for it.
Even the evidence of doctors P.W.4 an P.W.5 indicates that she was
not having any signs of life and in fact Dr. Manwatkar had informed
the accused No.1 that she is dead long time back and the postmortem
is to be carried out, but the accused No.1 ran away from that place by
taking the dead body to Belkhed. The evidence of the doctors indicated
that it is a homicidal death caused by throttling associated with
smothering.
29] C.A. Reports support the evidence of the doctor and

P.W.11, P.W.15 and P.W.19 have stated that the accused No.1 used to
take doubt on the deceased and he would beat her and threaten her
and as the deceased was having her duty on holiday, P.W.11 has
stated that the deceased had informed her that the accused No.1 has
picked up quarrel with her and assaulting her and thereafter these
accused have given different version like she vomited or suffered heart
attack or got electric shock, but none of these are the reasons of the
cause of death. Therefore, as per learned P.P., each and every chain of
circumstance has been proved by the prosecution. The burden was on
the accused to explain the custodial death. The accused No.2 was a
Police Patil and was aware of the legal provisions but still he has
helped the accused No.1 by giving misleading information to the
relatives and the accused were not ready to carry out the postmortem
obviously for destroying the evidence or not allowing it to come
forward and therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
which is supported by the documents i.e. photographs and C.D.Rs.
proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 has caused the
death of the deceased inside the house. The burden was on the
accused No.1 to explain the cause of death as per Section 106 of Indian
Evidence Act, but there is no explanation and there is no probable fact

brought on record by the accused No.1 about grave and sudden
provocation.
30] In support of his arguments, learned P.P. Relied on the

judgment between Allwyn Liguroy Furtado Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2021 DGLS (Bom.) 397 which is a case of
circumstantial evidence and observation of the Supreme Court in

Devanand Mishra Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1995 AIR (SC)
801 has been highlighted which basically says that in case of
circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain
of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be
such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the
accused. It is observed in Para 23 by the Bombay High Court that the
false explanation offered by the accused proves to be an additional
link in the chain of circumstances.
31] Similarly in the case of Rahul Vs. State of Haryana
reported in 2021 DGLS (SC) 124 it is observed that merely because
two of the witnesses are related to the deceased, that by itself, is no

ground to discard their testimony. If their testimony is corroborated
by other evidence on record, same can be relied on to establish the
guilt of the accused. Learned P.P. would say that in the present case
also the evidence of the son of accused No.1 as well as other relatives
of the deceased is supported by the medical evidence of asphyxial

death and therefore their evidence cannot be discarded just because
they are the relatives of the deceased.
32] The case of R. Damodaran Vs. State represented by
the Inspector of Police reported in 2021 DGLS(SC) 96 is again in
respect of circumstantial evidence. In para 18 of the said judgment it

is observed that the present case squarely rests on circumstantial
evidence where the death has been caused by homicidal violence and
the appellant who had himself taken the deceased to the hospital and
made a false statement to the doctor that she had suffered a cardiac
arrest which was found to be false after the postmortem report was
received and the nature of injuries which were attributed on the body
of the deceased of which a reference has been made clearly establish
that it is the case where none other than the accused appellant has
committed a commission of crime with intention to commit murder of
his own wife who was at the advanced stage of pregnancy.
33] Learned P.P. would say that the accused not only made
false statement to the witnesses, but also to the doctor when in fact
she was killed by throttling associated with smothering. In
Dnyaneshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 DGLS
(SC) 338, husband and his parents were tried for murder and dowry
death and it was observed that one of the circumstances which is

relevant is that when the couple was last seen in the premises to
which outsider may not have any access, it was for the husband to
explain the ground of unnatural death of his wife.
34] In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram reported in 2006
DGLS (SC) 957 about section 302 of Indian Penal Code and section
106 of Indian Evidence Act, it is observed that the principle is well

settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are
unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is
especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving
that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased,
he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company.
He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be
probable and satisfactory. If he does so, he must be held to have
discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis
of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden
cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on
circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable
explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself
provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved
against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a
criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the
rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which
are specially within his knowledge, the Court can consider his failure
to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the

chain.
35] Learned P.P. would say that as the accused has given false
explanation and when the prosecution proves that it is the death
caused due to throttling associated with smothering and the false
pretext brought by the accused, the prosecution case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
36] Per contra, learned advocate for the accused would say
that complaint Exh.62 was filed only on the basis of suspicion. There
is a delay of 15 hours in filing the complaint Exh.63 at Jamner Police
Station and therefore, there is a chance of due deliberation and
raising of doubt. The witness Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 11 are the close
relatives of the deceased and there is tendency of exaggeration. The
statements of the witnesses were not recorded before 17 th January
2019 and there was delay in recording statement giving possibility of
due deliberation and discussion between them. The neighbours of the
deceased are not examined. P.W.15 is a close friend of the deceased
and she is interested witness. In the inquest memo, there is no
mention of injuries on neck, but as good as 18 injuries are mentioned
in the postmortem report. So, there is a doubt whether these injuries
were caused subsequently. In the inquest memo, it is mentioned that
Salwar was having green colour but the postmortem report indicates
that it was not the green colour but blue colour plus there is no
mention of Odhani in the inquest memo, then how it came in the
postmortem report and therefore, there is possibility of doubt.
37] Learned Advocate would also say that exact time of death
is not proved. About the earlier illtreatment to the deceased, the
relatives have not filed any complaint or report. The chain of
circumstances is not proved. The statement of the deceased to her
relatives about illtreatment by the accused cannot be used because of
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. There are material omissions in
the evidence of P.W.10 Durvesh and other witnesses. Durvesh has not
stated presence of accused No.2 when they went to Bhusawal by Ecco
vehicle and the accused No.2 had left for Belkhed. The medical
evidence is doubtful because there is discrepancy in the injuries
mentioned in the inquest memo and postmortem report. The cause of
death throttling associated with smothering is also doubtful. The
hystopathology report Exh.188, which according to learned advocate,
is a duplicate report mentions early stage of pregnancy but the
certificate produced by the accused indicates that she had already
undergone tubectomy. The injuries on the body of accused No.1 are
identically mentioned by the two doctors P.W.12 and P.W.14 and
therefore, they are unbelievable.
38] Further, the accused has explained that these injuries

were caused to him by P.W.1 Ganesh Suradkar at Belkhed. Similarly,
learned advocate would say that the C.D.Rs. cannot be believed. The
photographs of the deceased cannot be read in evidence because the
person who had taken the photographs was not examined by the
prosecution. The C.A. Reports, in particular, nail clippings do not
indicate any blood or tissue matter in them. The Investigating Officer
has not taken cognizance of the offence at the earliest opportunity
when he has received the information in the morning of 14 th January
2019 from Varangaon Police Station. So, there are serious infirmities,
ambiguity, lacunae and discrepancies in the prosecution case and
therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt. Further, learned advocate for the accused
would say that the burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the homicidal death and since, it is not proved,
burden as per section 106 of Indian Evidence Act cannot be shifted on
the accused.
39] In support of his arguments that in the circumstantial

evidence case each and every chain of the circumstances is to be
proved, learned advocate has relied on the following five judgments.
[1] Mohd. Sadik Mohd. Rafiq Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1974 Bombay H.C. Nagpur
Bench.
[2] Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1982
SC 1157.
[3] Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622.
[4] Satish Nirankari Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017
STPL 8896 SC.
[5] Tumaso Bruno and anr. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2015
STPL 3370 SC.
40] Further the prosecution has not proved the text of SMS
exchanged between the deceased and P.W.19 and therefore, it cannot
be relied upon. On the point of discrepancies in the inquest memo and
postmortem report and recording of belated statements of the
witnesses, he has relied on the judgments between State of
Maharashtra Vs. Pramod Dhanraj Gajbhiye and others reported
in 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 1863 Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench
and Maula Baksh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1980 STPL
716 SC.
41] On the point that the statement of the deceased about the
injuries and illtreatment caused to her by accused No.1 are not related
to her cause of death and therefore, as observed in Motising and
another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1960 STPL 214 SC, they
cannot be used against the accused being not admissible. On the point
of delay in filing the F.I.R. and recording statement, learned advocate

relied on the judgments between Ganesh Bhawan Patel Vs. State
of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1979 SC 135 and State of
Maharashtra Vs. Wafati Babu Qureshi and others reported in
1997 ALL MR (Cri) 518 Bombay.
42] Further, learned advocate for the accused submitted that

prosecution failed to prove the motive as to why accused No.1 would
kill his wife, the entire case of the prosecution fails and to support his
argument, he has relied on the judgments between Ram Shankar
S/o Tufani Sahane Vs. State reported in 2009(2) Mh.L.J (Cri) 249,
State of Rajasthan Vs. Hakamsing reported in 2011 STPL 21321
SC. In The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sahebrao Baburao
Jogdand reported in 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 1269 it is observed that
the prosecution failed to prove illicit relationship being material

circumstance to connect the accused in chain of circumstances. On the
point about missing of links and medical evidence not disclosing the
exact time of death, he has relied on the judgment between
Bhagwandas Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1996 STPL 937
SC.
43] Learned advocate also submitted that there is a possibility

of two views in respect of the accused and therefore, as observed by
the Supreme Court in Vikramjitsingh Vs. State of Punjab reported
in 2007 Cr.L.J. 1000, the benefit of doubt can be given to the accused.
Learned advocate also submitted that even if there is a strong

suspicion, but it cannot take place of the evidence as observed by the
Supreme Court in Dasri Siva Prasad Reddy Vs. Public
Prosecutor High Court of A.P. reported in 2004 STPL 12926 (SC).
On the point of delay in lodging F.I.R., he relied on the judgment of

Supreme Court in the case of Thuliya Kali Vs. State of T.N.
reported in AIR 1973 (S.C.) 501 wherein it is observed that the delay
in lodging the report would raise considerable doubt regarding the

veracity of the evidence of the two witnesses and point to an infirmity
in that evidence and would render it unsafe to base the conviction of
the appellant.
44] Learned P.P, in reply, has submitted that the judgments

relied upon by the accused are not applicable in the present facts and
circumstances. There was no delay in F.I.R. because at the first
opportunity P.W.1 had filed complaint at Varangaon Police Station
and thereafter when the doctor gave opinion about the cause of death
and murder formal complaint was recorded at Jamner Police Station
because the spot of incident was at Jamner and therefore, there was
no delay and there was no reason for the witnesses to make any false
statement.
45] So far as appreciation of evidence is concerned, principles

governing case of circumstantial evidence, burden on the accused
under section 106 of Indian Evidence Act to explain the cause of
death, there can be no dispute that they are applicable to all such
cases and this case is also no exception. As such, when this court
would be guided by these principles, it will also have to be borne in
mind another well settled principle of evaluating the evidence based
on facts and circumstances of the instant case and none of the
conclusions of Hon'ble Higher Courts arrived at in the judgments
supra can be made applicable in tailor made fashion. With this caveat
the evidence is analyzed here in below.
AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2 :
46] The first and foremost thing is whether the prosecution

proved that the death was homicidal. On the other hand, the accused
have informed the relatives and two doctors at Bhusawal that she
suffered electric shock, vomited and became unconscious or had heart
attack.
47] To determine this question, the important evidence is that

of P.W.10 Durvesh, son of the deceased and accused No.1 who has
stated that when he and his grandmother left the house at 10.00 a.m.,
the accused Nos.1, 2 and the deceased were present in the house. He
stated that at around 01.30 p.m., when he rang up the accused No.1 as
to whether he is coming to housewarming ceremony at Savarla, the

accused No.1 told him that he cannot come and they should come back
by the evening bus of 06.00 p.m. Accordingly, he and his grandmother
came back to the house. The accused No.2 was sitting outside the
house and crying and on inquiry, the accused No.2 told him that the
deceased vomited twice and lying unconscious in the bedroom. When
he saw his mother in the bedroom, she was totally unmoved, lying as
it is and she was having injury on her chin. So, as per son of accused
No.1 and the deceased, when he left the house in the morning, his
mother was alive and when he came at 06.00 p.m., his mother was
lying unmoved in the bedroom.
48] Then Priya P.W.11 has stated that at 11.27 a.m. She
received phone call of the deceased and the deceased told her that she
has a duty in the Court, but her husband is not allowing her to go and
was saying that today is holiday and she is going for idle work ( fjdkes
dke) in the Court, she was crying and told her that her husband was
beating her. So, she told the deceased that within two days she will
send their parents to convince the accused No.1 and the deceased also
informed her that at 10.00 a.m. Durvesh and her motherinlaw went
to Savarla and the accused No.2 is outside the house because of
engagement ceremony in the neighbourhood and the accused No.1 has
bolted the door from inside and assaulting her. She asked the
deceased not to indulge in arguments and go on duty. Then their
conversation was stopped because she was getting call from her
husband.
49] This evidence of Priya about the phone call is corroborated

by the C.D.R. Exh.176 wherein the location of the mobile used by the
deceased is shown as Supari Bag, Jamner. So, the evidence of P.W.11
Priya indicates that at around 11.30 a.m. the deceased was being
manhandled by the accused No.1. Although the prosecution is saying
that its case is totally based on circumstantial evidence, but the
conversation on mobile between the deceased and her sister bring out
the evidence in the nature of resgestae . Further, the evidence of
P.W.15 Supriya indeed proves that the deceased was assigned charge
of attending the remand work as per the document Exh.96.
50] Then the evidence of P.W.19 Dnyaneshwar Borse indicates

that the deceased was his junior and she used to take his advise and
at around 08.52 a.m. he had chat with the deceased on 13.01.2019 and
then they exchanged few SMS and the last SMS sent by the deceased
was at 11.40.50 a.m. and then within fifteen seconds he sent her two
SMS. The evidence of Dnyaneshwar Borse is also corroborated by the
C.D.R. Exh.176. After 11.40.50 a.m. there was no outgoing call or SMS
from the mobile used by the deceased. The condition of the mobile
Article8 also shows that its screen was broken and the body was bent
which is the sign of passing anger on the instrument and damaging it.
51] Although contents of text of SMS exchanged between the

deceased and P.W.19 Borse are not before the Court but early morning
phone call, number of messages and broken mobile brings out a
definite tell tales sign of adding fuel in the brudding suspicion on
character of deceased by accused No.1. There is no reason to disbelieve
the evidence of these witnesses on this point which shows that violent
quarrel or attack was going on inside the house of the accused No.1. It
also proves that when the deceased was subjected to manhandling her
condition was perceived by her sister when she heard the deceased
crying and telling the acts of the accused No.1.
52] In light of the above direct evidence, the evidence of the

two doctors who have seen the deceased at Bhusawal and evidence of
P.W.18 Dr. Devraj who has conducted autopsy becomes immensely
important. It is to be noted that the evidence of the doctor who has
carried out autopsy is two fold. One is his direct evidence i.e. the
condition of the dead body and presence of injuries which have been
seen by him and another is his opinion about the cause of death.
53] As per the evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Rahul, he knew the

accused No.1 because mother of accused No.1 was his patient. At
about 07.30 p.m. on above date, when he was sitting in his cabin, the
accused No.1 came and told him that due to chest pain, his wife has
become unconscious and he has brought her by vehicle outside the
hospital. Immediately, he went to check her in the vehicle itself and

found that pulse was absent and she was not making any movement.
Therefore, he advised the accused No.1 to take her to a big hospital.
54] Then as per the evidence of P.W.5 Dr. Rajesh at 09.40 p.m.
he received phone call of his receptionist that one serious patient has
come. He rushed to the hospital immediately because his house was
adjoining to the hospital. The deceased was kept on I.C.U. Bed. The
accused No.1 introduced himself as Dr. Bharat Patil and told him that
his wife had vomited, got attack and fell down. He examined her and
found that her body was totally cold, her pulse and heartbeats were
not found, respiration was stopped, pupils dilated, he found that she
was having certain abrasions on her nose and face and he was sure
that she died prior to considerable time. He called accused No.1 in his
cabin and told him that she is dead and her M.L.C. will have to be
done. The accused No.1 told him that he will discuss with relatives
and inform him in two minutes, but then the accused No.1 ran away
by carrying the patient. So the evidence of these two independent
doctors coupled with the evidence of Durvesh indicates that at least at
about 06.00 p.m. the deceased was not showing any signs of life and
she was in the house of accused No.1.
55] Another striking fact comes out is why the deceased was
not taken to any hospital at Jamner which is a big Taluka place and
has lot of expert doctors for immediate help. Accused No.1, being a
doctor, must be aware of those doctors and also with his experience
has knowledge of visible signs in dead and alive person. There is no
explanation on it given by the accused No.1. In case of sudden ill
health any person in normal circumstances will try to get medical help
available at Jamner itself.
56] Then from Bhusawal, the deceased was taken to Belkhed

via Varangaon and then Ganesh P.W.1 and other relatives who
assembled over there, saw the deceased, saw injuries on her face and
thereafter, the deceased was taken by Ganesh and other relatives to
Varangaon where inquest panchanama was carried out and then the
body was sent to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon for postmortem.
57] As per the evidence of Dr. Devraj P.W.18 the photographs

of the deceased were taken in his presence by the constable of police
department when the deceased was put on the autopsy table. The
dead body was received at 11.30 a.m. on 14.01.2019 and postmortem
was started at 12.40 p.m. After removal of the clothes and ornaments
worn by the deceased, he found following 18 ante mortem external
injuries.
[1] Contusion present over left fronto parietal region of size 5
cm x 3 Cm. red in colour.
[2] Multiple pin point petechial hemorrhagic spots present

over left ala of nose of size varying from 0.3 cm. x 0.2 cm.
to 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm. red in colour.
[3] Contusion present over left side of chin 2.5 cm. left lateral
to midline of size 5 cm x 3 cm, red in colour.
[4] Contused abrasion present above and in front of left ear
tragus of size 0.3 cm. x 0.2 red in colour.
[5] Contused abrasion present 1.5 cm. below left angle of
mouth of size 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm. red in colour.
[6] Contused abrasion present 2 cm. below injury No.3 of size
0.2 cm. x 0.2 c.m. red in colour.
[7] Contused abrasion present 1 cm. right lateral to midline
below chin of size 1 cm. x 0.2 cm. red in colour.
[8] Contused abrasion present 3 cm. right lateral to midline
and 1 cm. lateral to injury No.7 over chin of size 3 cm x 1
cm. red in colour.
[9] Contused abrasion, two in number present over right
angle of mandible of size 0.3 cm. x 0.3 cm. and 0.3 cm. x
0.2 cm. red in colour.
[10] Contusion, present over right lateral aspect of neck 2 cm.
below right angle of mandible of size 3 cm. x 1 cm. red in
colour.
[11] Abrasion present over dorsal aspect of right hand at head
of 3rd metacarpal bone of size 0.5 cm. x 0.3 cm. red in
colour.
[12] Linear abrasion present 2 cm. left lateral aspect of neck

from midline, crescentic in shape of size 0.5 cm. x 0.2 cm.
red in colour.
[13] Contusion present over posterolateral aspect of left
shoulder of size 6 cm. x 4.5 cm. red in colour.
[14] Contusion present over left lateral aspect of left hypo
gastric region of size 5 cm. x 3.5 cm. red in colour.
[15] Contusion present over mucosal surface of lower lip in
midline of size 1 cm. x 1 cm. red in colour.
[16] Contusion present over mucosal surface of lower lip 1 cm.
right lateral to midline of size 1 cm. x 1 cm. red in colour.
[17] Contusion present over mucosal surface of upper lip at
right angle of mouth of size 1 cm. x 1 cm. red in colour.
[18] Lacerated wound present over tip of tongue on right side
of size 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep red in colour.
58] The doctor also found that these injuries were ante
mortem, fresh and reddish in colour and caused within 12 to 24 hours
before start of postmortem. It means the injuries were caused between
12.40 p.m. of 13.01.2019 and 12.40 a.m. of 14.01.2019. Undisputedly
when Durvesh has seen his mother at 06.00 p.m., he had noticed
injury on her chin and she was not making any movement and
thereafter, she was taken in the vehicle of P.W.8 Vipul to Bhusawal.
So, if the opinion of the doctor is seen in light of evidence of Durvesh,
Priya and P.W.19 Dnyaneshwar Borse, the injuries suffered by the

deceased are between 12.00 O'clock noon and 06.00 p.m. of 13.01.2019.
It also establishes that the injuries were suffered inside the house of
accused No.1 at Supari Bag, Jamner.
59] Dr. Devraj has also noted following internal injuries on

head, thorax and lungs.
Head : Under scalp hematoma present right lateral to midline over
parietal region of size 4 cm. x 4 cm. red. Skull vault was intact and
there was no evidence of any fracture of skull vault and at skull base.
Brain Membranes intact and congested, Brain intact, subarachnoid
hemorrhagic film present over parietal region of both hemisphere in
the area of size 3 cm. x 2 cm. and 2 cm. x 2 cm., red, edematous and on
cut section congested.
Thorax : Larynx, Trachea and Bronchi – On dissection of neck – (1)
underlying soft tissue were pale, white and glistening. (2)
Hemorrhagic infiltration present over superficial layers of neck
muscle of size varying from 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. to 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm., red
and consistent with external injury Nos.3, 7, 8, 10 and 12 mentioned
in column No.17. (3) Hyoid bone was intact. (4) Left superior Horn of
thyroid cartilage fractured, directing medially, associated with
hemorrhagic infiltration in surrounding area.
Lungs : Right and left lungs were intact, multiple pin point petechial
hemorrhagic spots present over external surface of both the lungs. On
cut section both lungs were edematous, congested and reddish fluid
oozing out.
Even the Hystopathology report Exh.188 indicates that
sample of lungs was spongy and hemorrhagic and sections from lung
parenchyma show mild edema with congestion and partial autolytic
changes. It supports opinion of Dr. Devraj.
60] As per Dr. Devraj, external injury No.1, 13 and 14 were

possible by hard and blunt object like a rod or hitting over a wall,
injury Nos.2 to 11 and 15 to 18 were possible by impact of hard and
blunt object like palm of hand and fist whereas injury No.12 was
possible by pointed sharp object like finger nails. The internal injury
to the head was consistent with the internal damage to external injury
No.1. The internal injuries to Thorax mentioned herein above were
collectively sufficient by injury No.3, 6 to 10 and 12. As per the doctor,
out of the 18 injuries except injury Nos.4, 11, 13 and 14, all other
injuries were collectively sufficient to cause her death and in the
initial and final opinion of doctor the cause of death was throttling
associated with smothering.
61] Learned advocate for the accused argued that asphyxial

death is not possible because there was no fracture of hyoid bone.
However, this argument is not applicable in the present case because
this is not the case of strangulation. Further physical appearance of
the injuries noticed by the doctor clearly shows that external force was
used on the face and nose of the deceased to block inhalation and
colour of her skin and lips i.e. bluish, face and ears show the well
known effect on the skin because of lack of oxygen. Even the tongue of
the deceased was clinched between her teeth and also there was a dry
blood crust present in the left ear opening indicative of the reaction of
her body due to stoppage of oxygen by using external force.
62] Now the question would be how the throttling associated

with smothering is carried out. At the time of autopsy, Dr. Devraj has
taken 11 slides of sticking of the injuries on the face of the deceased.
Along with other clothes, the deceased was also having red colour
Odhani Article1 and from the house of the accused while drawing
spot panchanama pillow cover Article9 was seized. All these articles
along with other viscera bottles and the other clothes which were duly
kept in the custody by the Investing Officer were sent to Forensic
Laboratory, Nashik. There is no evidence to raise doubt on proper
custody of the seized samples and articles. As per C.A. Report Exh.190
the fibers detected on 11 slides of sticking microscopically appeared
similar with the fibers derived from Odhani Article1 and Pillow Cover
Article9. The other C.A. Reports ruled out possibility of poisoning.
63] The direct evidence of Dr. Devraj as regards the injuries

having been noticed by him and narrated in the postmortem report is
also corroborated by the photographs of the deceased Exh.123 to

Exh.128. Of course, learned advocate for the accused has argued that
as the prosecution has not examined the L.C.B. Constable who has
clicked the photographs, they cannot be read in evidence for absence of
the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Technically,
the argument of learned advocate for the accused cannot be discarded.
However, even if the photographs Exh.123 to Exh.128 which are
corroborative piece of evidence to the direct evidence of Dr. Devraj and
other witnesses, still it does not cause any dent to the independent
testimony of Dr. Devraj.
64] It is also to be noted that certain injuries on the face of the

deceased were noticed by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.10, P.W.11 and
P.W.13. Learned advocate for the accused has argued that in the
inquest panchanama, there is no mention of the injury on throat, but
the postmortem report indicates it and therefore, there is doubt.
However, the doctor, who is an expert, when mentions the injuries and
the prosecution has also brought out photographs of the deceased to
verify the evidence of the doctor if need be it does not take theory of
doubt raised by the learned advocate for the accused to the advantage
of the accused.
65] Once the prosecution has proved that the asphyxial death
is caused inside the house of the accused No.1 and the deceased and
for causing asphyxial death Odhani Article1 and Pillow having pillow
cover Article9 were used in the house, the question would be who has
caused the culpable homicide ?
66] Undisputedly, the accused No.1 has external injuries on

his body. The photographs of his external injuries Exh.98 to Exh.103
taken at 16.00 hours on 14.01.2019 do indicate the minor injuries
suffered by him. The accused No.1 was examined by Dr. Swapnil
P.W.12 prior to his arrest and by Dr. Harshal P.W.14 after the arrest.
Dr. Swapnil has narrated the injuries found over the body of the
accused No.1 in the certificate Exh.87 and the same injuries were
found by Dr. Harshal who mentioned them in the injury certificate
Exh.94. Following are the injuries found on the body of the accused
No.1.
[1] Lacerated Wound on fifth finger of right hand size 4 Cm. X
0.5 Cm. with evidence of partial healing, red in colour, 34
days old.
[2] Abrasion on the tip of little finger of right hand Size 0.5
Cm. X 0.5 Cm. red in colour, no scab formation.
[3] Abrasion present over left side of chest 5 Cm. below mid
point of left clavicular size 3 Cm. X 1 Cm. and 2.5 Cm. X
1.00 C.m. red in colour, no scab formation.
[4] Abrasion present over left side of face 2 Cm. below lower
eyelid size 0.5 Cm. X 0.1 Cm. red in colour, no scab
formation.
[5] Abrasion present over right side of face 1 Cm. below right
eyelid measuring 1.00 Cm. X 0.5 Cm. red in colour, no scab
formation.
[6] Abrasion present over right lateral aspect of nose and 0.5
cm. anterior to injury No.5 size 0.5 cm. X 0.3 cm. red in
colour, no scab formation.
[7] Abrasion present over Palmer aspect of left hand at base
of thumb size 0.5 Cm. X 0.5 Cm. red colour, no scab
formation.
[8] Abrasion over middle finger of left hand over distal
phalanx lateral aspect of size 0.5 Cm. X 0.5 Cm. red in
colour, no scab formation.
[9] Abrasion present over posterior aspect of index finger of
right hand at distal phalanx of size 1.0 Cm. X 0.5 Cm. red
in colour, no scab formation.
67] As per these doctors, the injuries were fresh and caused
within 12 to 36 hours before the start of examination wich was done at
04.10 p.m. on 14.01.2019 by Dr. Swapnil P.W.12. All the injuries
except injury No.1 were possible by sharp object like finger nails and
injury No.1 was possible by hard and blunt object. The injury No.1
was two to four days old. So that cannot be considered as an injury
suffered by the accused on 13 th January 2019 i.e. the date of the
incident.
68] Accused has taken a defence that these injuries were

caused to him by P.W.1 Ganesh and even the upper button of his shirt
was broken by Ganesh. However, the accused could not bring out any
evidence to probablize his defence. Even his son P.W.10 Durvesh has
denied the suggestion of any kind of beating to the accused No.1 by
Ganesh P.W.1 or other relatives of the deceased. Of course, Durvesh
has stated that on the night of 13 th and 14th January 2019 at Belkhed
there was jostling (vks<krk.k). There is no reason for the son of the
accused No.1 to make any false statement against his father.
69] Then if the accused No.1 has suffered these injuries

because of Ganesh or other relatives of the deceased, the accused who
is Doctor of Medicine in Electro Homeopathy would have certainly
informed at the first opportunity to the Investing Officer or to the
remand Magistrate. But no such evidence is on record including the
remand papers of this case. Further, from the polytrauma and in
particular most of the injuries suffered by the accused No.1 are on
fingers and palm. inference can safely be drawn that the accused has
suffered these injuries as the deceased may have tried to save herself
during the assault.
70] Even, the photographs Exh.106 to Exh.110 bring out the

situation inside the house to indicate that the mobile Article8 of the
deceased with broken screen was lying on the table, the bed sheet in
the bedroom was scattered. So the above evidence which includes

deposition of not only the relatives of the deceased, but also the
independent witnesses and also the circumstantial evidence and
forensic evidence clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that the
deceased has been killed in the house.
71] The burden was on the accused No.1 as per section 106 of
the Indian Evidence Act to explain the cause of death. The accused
was saying that the cause was heart attack or electric shock or
vomiting. But the evidence of the doctor and forensic evidence clearly
established that the cause of death was throttling associated with
smothering and when the accused No.1 has certain minor injuries on
his body and also the fact that there was no other person inside the
house of the accused No.1 and the deceased except the accused No.1,
the irrefutable inference of guilt of the accused No.1 in killing his wife
can safely be drawn.
72] Learned Advocate for the accused has argued that the
motive was not proved by the prosecution. However, evidence of Priya
P.W.11 shows that the accused had picked up quarrel and was not
allowing the deceased to attend the remand work on holiday on the
ground that she is going for unnecessary work shows his doubtful
mentality. P.W.11 Priya has stated that the deceased was a beautiful
lady and that was the reason for the accused No.1 to be suspicious
about his wife. The behaviour of the accused No.1 of suspecting his
wife can also be guaged from the evidence of Durvesh P.W.10 who has
stated that some time atmosphere in their house was not good.
Similarly, Priya P.W.11 has stated that when the deceased came to
her house at Aurangabad for housewarming ceremony, she had
informed that the accused suspects her character and he abuses and
beats her and while going back on the way the accused had throttled
her and then she sent her parents to convince the accused. Another
factor about such type of behaviour of the accused No.1 comes out
from the evidence of Supriya P.W.15 who has stated that on 05 th
September 2018 when she along with other Assistant Police
Prosecutors were sitting for lunch, they saw the deceased was having
marks of injuries on the shoulder and back and she told them that her
husband has caused them and she was reluctant to file any complaint
against the accused because she thought accused No.1 is a merciless
person and he has threatened her that he will kill the sons.
73] Learned Advocate for the accused has argued that these
witnesses are interested witnesses and therefore, they should not be
believed. However, from the evidence of Priya P.W.11, it does not
appear so. Priya in her crossexamination has fairly admitted
whatever help provided by the accused to her parents and herself. If
she wanted to exaggerate, definitely, she would not have admitted the
suggestion of the accused that he has taken her care when she
suffered Tuberculosis and also helped her father when he suffered

cancer and brain hemorrhage. Learned advocate for the accused also
submitted that her statement was recorded after fifteen days of the
incident and therefore, there is possibility of concoction, but that
argument does not create any doubt about the evidence of Priya
P.W.11, who is still taking care of both the sons of accused No.1.
74] Learned Advocate for the accused tried to create a doubt

about authenticity of Hystopathology report Exh.188 wherein the
sample of uterus indicate early pregnancy, on the ground that the
deceased had undergone tubectomy and the accused had produced the
certificate along with his statement. Perusal of Hystopathology report
indicates that the sample of uterus also contains 5 Cm. long Fallopian
tube and the cut section indicated fetus with three separate placenta
and cord. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the certificate obtained by
the accused on 10th March 2021 about tubectomy on 29.05.2017 does
not create any doubt about the Hystopathology report.
75] So, if the above evidence is seen coupled with the evidence
of Priya as to why the accused was not allowing the deceased to attend
the remand work at Jalgaon and the circumstantial evidence of
broken mobile and scattered bed sheet in the house do show that the
accused No.1 had nurtured his doubt on character of the deceased to
such an extent that he ultimately eliminated her. Therefore, the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased

was done to death by the accused No.1. Accordingly, the points are
answered in above terms.
AS TO POINT NO.3 :
76] So far as the offence of causing disappearance of the

evidence of murder by accused Nos.1 and 2 is concerned, the above
evidence on record shows that when Durvesh and his grandmother left
the house at 10.00 a.m., the two accused and the deceased were in the
house. When Durvesh came back, the accused No.2 was sitting outside
the house. Then the accused No.1 came along with Vipul P.W.8 and
then the deceased was put in the Ecco vehicles to be taken to
Bhusawal.
77] As per the evidence of Vipul, who is an independent

witness, he was called in the house and he, accused No.1, Durvesh
have lifted the deceased and put her in the Ecco vehicle. The
circumstantial evidence i.e. the seat cover Article13 of the Ecco
Vehicle and the white metal ring Article12 do support evidence of
Vipul and Durvesh about carrying the deceased by that vehicle to
Bhusawal.
78] As per Vipul, accused No.1 told him that the deceased had
vomited and she is to be taken to the hospital at Bhusawal. Obviously,
the fact of vomiting was a false statement made by the accused No.1.
Further Vipul has stated that the accused No.1 informed him inside
the house of incident that the deceased had suffered a minor attack
and she is unconscious. Then P.W.4 Dr. Rahul has stated that the
accused No.1 told him that his wife has suffered chest pain and fell
unconscious. Dr. Rajesh P.W.5 has stated that the accused No.1 told
him that his wife has vomited and fell down because of attack. Suraj
P.W.6, who has seen the accused Nos.1 and 2, deceased, Durvesh,
mother of accused No.1 at the hospital of Dr. Rajesh P.W.5, has stated
that when he made phone call to accused No.2, he told him that
nobody at Bhusawal is admitting the deceased and therefore, they are
going towards Jalgaon. But while coming back home, when he checked
the hospital of Dr. Rajesh, he found them at that hospital and accused
No.2 was sitting near reception counter. The accused No.2 told him
that the deceased has suffered an attack. In the meantime, the
accused No.1 came out of I.C.U. and on inquiry, informed him that the
deceased had expired and accused No.2 told him that if they wait
there, they will have to carry out the postmortem and therefore, they
are taking the body to Belkhed.
79] Then P.W.10 Durvesh has stated that the accused No.2
told him that the deceased vomited twice and she is lying unconscious
in the bedroom. Priya P.W.11 has stated that in the evening at around
06.30 p.m., she got phone call of accused No.2, who informed her that
the deceased had suffered a shock. He again called her and told her
that the deceased vomited and she suffered an attack and on her
inquiry, he told her that they are taking her to Bhusawal. So she
informed P.W.6 Suraj to go to the hospitals at Bhusawal. She also
stated that the mobile number of accused No.1 was coming switched
off and accused No.2 was telling names of different hospitals.
80] From the evidence of Suraj P.W.6, Vipul P.W.8 and Priya
P.W.11, the accused No.2 was also accompanying the accused No.1 at
Bhusawal. The evidence of these witnesses about the presence of
accused No.2 along with accused No.1 right up to Bhusawal and from
there taking the dead body in Ecco vehicle to Belkhed is supported by
the C.D.R. Exh.176 containing call details of mobile number
9421023067 of accused No.2 Lalsingh. Perusal of C.D.Rs. Exh.176 and
Exh.177 indicate that at 18.02.12 hours, 18.03.44 hours, 18.18.33
hours, 19.25.52 hours, 20.33.17 hours and 20.50.24 hours there were
calls between the mobile of accused No.2 and Priya. Most importantly,
the tower location of the mobile of accused No.2 at 19.57.31 hours
indicates that it is at Nahata College, Bhusawal and subsequent tower
locations are Rajeshwar, Navshakti, Rajeshwar and Nahata college up
to 21.41.32 hours indicate that the said mobile was in the towers
located at Bhusawal city. It is to be noted that the accused extensively
crossexamined P.W.17 P.I. Ingle on C.D.R. Exh.176 and direct
evidence of P.W.6 about presence of accused No.2 at Bhusawal is
supported by circumstantial evidence i.e. C.D.Rs.
81] Undisputedly, the hospitals of Dr. Rahul P.W.4 and Dr.

Rajesh P.W.5 are in Bhusawal city and therefore, there is no reason to
disbelieve the evidence of independent witness Vipul that the accused
No.2 accompanied them in the Ecco vehicle from Jamner to Bhusawal
and Belkhed. The C.D.Rs. of the mobile of accused No.2 also indicate
that at 21.46.30 hours tower location of his mobile was Deepnagar,
Bhusawal and then after about 20 minutes the tower location was of
Varangaon and last tower locations up to 23.19.09 hours of 13.01.2019
are of Pimpalgaon i.e. the village near Belkhed. So, this evidence
clearly proves that the accused No.2, in fact, was also with accused
No.1. P.W.6 Suraj has seen him at Bhusawal and he has not made any
false statement just because he is relative of the deceased.
82] Of course, P.W.10 Durvesh, in his evidence before the

Court, has omitted the name of accused No.2 having accompanied
them to Bhusawal and on a specific question by this Court, Durvesh
has stated that the accused No.2 has left for Belkhed from Jamner
itself. Apparently, P.W.10 Durvesh tried to save his grandfather. But
the evidence of other independent witnesses supported by the C.D.Rs.
of the mobile of accused No.2 does not create any doubt on the case of
the prosecution and involvement of accused No.2 with accused No.1.
83] The statements made to various persons by accused Nos.1

and 2 about the cause of death are false statements. Further, the
evidence of P.W.1 Ganesh, P.W.11 and other relatives indicate that

the accused tried to go ahead with the cremation without conducting
the postmortem and that is obviously to avoid finding out of the
evidence of throttling associated with smothering by accused No1. In
the instant case, not only the accused No.1 is a qualified doctor, but
even accused No.2 was a Police Patil, so both of them were aware of
necessity of basic legal requirements when there is an unnatural
death. As such, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that both the
accused had knowledge of commission of offence of murder and still
caused disappearance of evidence of commission of that offence. The
above evidence on record do establish that the accused Nos.1 and 2
with common intention committed the offence under section 201 of
Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the point is answered in above term.
AS TO POINT NO.4 :
84] The accused No.1 having found guilty of the offence under
section 302 of Indian Penal Code for which, the punishment is death
or rigorous imprisonment imprisonment for life and fine and as both
the accused are found guilty of the offence under section 201 read with
section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the punishment for it is rigorous
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years and fine.
85] I have heard both the accused and their learned advocate
as well as learned P.P. on the quantum of punishment. The accused
No.1 has submitted that the future of his children may be considered
while punishing him and he may be given a chance. Similarly, he is
the only son of his age old parents and there is nobody to look after
them. The accused No.2 has submitted that he is facing lot of physical
problems in squatting and getting up, his wife is also suffering and
there is nobody to look after her and therefore, considering his age,
leniency may be shown.
86] Learned Advocate Shri S.K. Shirude for the accused

submitted that the accused No.1 is the sole earning member, his age
may be considered and the minimum punishment necessary may be
imposed.
87] In respect of accused No2, learned advocate would submit

that recently the accused No.2 has undergone a surgery of his
shoulders, his wife is also suffering from ailments, he is above 75
years of age and in such circumstances the custodial period undergone
by him from 28.01.2019 to 28.03.2019 may be imposed as the
punishment of imprisonment or imprisonment less than three years
may be imposed.
88] Learned P.P. Shri K.J. Dhake has vehemently opposed the
prayer of the accused and their learned advocate for taking lenient
view in imposing the punishment. Learned P.P. submitted as regards
accused No.2 that his claim of suffering from various ailments and
physical inability is not correct because the record of the case would
show that he was attending each and every date in the Court and was
taking various steps in filing applications also. Further, the claim of
the accused No.1 that he will have to look after his parents is also not
factually correct because the evidence on record has brought out that
prior to and till the date of incident, the accused No.1 was residing at
Jamner and the accused No.2 along with his wife was residing at
Belkhed. Further, the claim of the accused No.2 that there is nobody
to look after his wife is not correct because the accused No.2 has
daughters who are residing in nearby Talukas and as has come on
record his relatives are also staying in Belkhed and considering the
fact that he was a Police Patil and such a crime of murder of an
earning lady in the house who was the Assistant Police Prosecutor
does not call for any kind of leniency. In respect of accused No.1,
learned P.P. would say that though aware of all the legal provisions,
just because of the grudge in his mind against his wife as she used to
talk on mobile, he has committed cold blooded murder. The
submission of accused No.1 that future of his children be considered,
learned P.P. would say that it is the accused No.1 who made them
orphan. Mother of the children was an earning lady and after her
death, the evidence on record shows that his children are being looked
after by Priya P.W.11 sister of the deceased. Therefore, the maximum
punishment may be imposed including heavy fine.
89] As per the statutory provisions, when the offence

prescribes punishment of death and the court is inclined to impose
such extreme capital punishment, then special reasons are to be given.
Of course, the special reasons or circumstances are not defined in the
statute, however, judicial pronouncements in respect of considering
the death penalty have highlighted certain principles and
circumstances to be borne in mind while arriving at a conclusion of
death penalty. For this purpose, gainful reference can be made to the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 898 and Ramnaresh
& Ors. Vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in 2012(4) SCC 257.
90] In Ramnaresh case while referring to earlier landmark

judgments certain principles in respect of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances have been highlighted and therefore, it would be
appropriate to reproduce them before adverting on the submissions of
prosecution and the defence on the quantum of punishment.
Mitigating Circumstances
{a} That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme
mental or emotional disturbance.
{b} The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall
not be sentenced to death.
{c} The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts
of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society.
{d} The probability that the accused can be reformed and
rehabilitated.
The state shall by evidence prove that the accused does not
satisfy Conditions {c} and {d} above.
{e} That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused
believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence.
{f} That the accused acted under the duress or domination of
another person.
{g} That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally
defective and that the said defence impaired his capacity to
appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
Aggravating Circumstances.
{a} The offences relating to the commission of heinous crimes like

murder, rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping etc. by the accused
with a prior record of conviction for capital felony or offences
committed by the person having a substantial history of serious
assaults and criminal convictions.
{b} The offence was committed while the offender was engaged in
the commission of another serious offence.
{c} The offence was committed with the intention to create a fear
psychosis in the public at large and was committed in a public
place by a weapon or device which clearly could be hazardous to
the life of more than one person.
{d} The offence of murder was committed for ransom or like offences
to receive money or monetary benefits.
{e} Hired killings.
{f} The offence was committed outrageously for want only while
involving inhumane treatment and torture to the victim.
{g} The offence was committed by a person while in lawful custody.
{h} The murder or the offence was committed to prevent a person
lawfully carrying out his duty like arrest or custody in a place of
lawful confinement of himself or another. For instance, murder
is of a person who had acted in lawful discharge of his duty
under Section 43 Cr.P.C.
{i} When the crime is enormous in proportion like making an
attempt of murder of the entire family or members of a
particular community.
{j} When the victim is innocent, helpless or a person relies upon the
trust of relationship and social norms, like a child, helpless
woman, a daughter or a niece staying with a father/uncle and is
inflicted with the crime by such a trusted person.
{k} When murder is committed for a motive which evidences total
depravity and meanness.
{l} When there is a cold blooded murder without provocation.

{m} The crime is committed so brutally that it pricks or shocks not
only the judicial conscience but even the conscience of the
society.
91] As per Section 354(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure when

the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or with
imprisonment for life, the judgment shall state the reasons for
sentence awarded and in case of sentence of death special reasons for
such sentence.
92] The aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court and also

catena of judgments on section 302 of Indian Penal Code indicate that
the principle for award of the punishment is more or less settled. The
death penalty is to be awarded in rarest of rare cases. For the offence
under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, imposition of punishment for
imprisonment of life is a rule.
93] The facts and circumstances of the instant case indicate

that the husband who was blessed to have a wife who with the grace
of God or nature was beautiful in appearance which has also been
stated by her sister Priya. But the unfortunate lady was also had the
gift of intelligence and she had completed her legal education after the
marriage and birth of two sons and with that she had secured her
place in the society by proving that she is an eligible advocate who can
be appointed as Assistant Police Prosecutor. Naturally, when a person
performs duty in upholding the rights of the victims and maintenance
of law and order which is a main plank for the Bench in doing the
work of social engineering, she had to be in touch with many people
and apparently in the present case that has not gone well with her
husband. Certainly in any marriage, there are wear and tears, but the
present case indicates that the observation of one English Author
about psychology of a male that a criminal minded person gets a
beautiful wife is apparently true if the facts and circumstances of the
case discussed herein above are seen.
94] Be that as it may, as the present case is based on

circumstantial evidence, the accused No.1 is an M.D. Doctor, he is not
having any criminal antecedents, in my considered view this case does
not fall in rarest of rare category.
95] So far as accused No.1 and 2 are concerned, as regards the

punishment under section 201 of Indian Penal Code, the accused No.2
who was a Police Patil certainly failed in his duty when knowingly he
has helped his son and tried to screen off the accused No.1. Certainly
age of accused No.2 is a factor which needs consideration, but at the
same time forceful argument of learned P.P. against accused No.2
cannot be brushed aside. It is also a principle of punishment that too
much leniency is no justice. Therefore, a balance will have to be struck

between the extreme and minimum punishment.
96] During the course of trial, the prosecution has produced

muddemal property Article1 to Article13 which are worthless except
white ring Article12 and can be disposed off. Accordingly, I pass
following order.
ORDER
[1] The accused No.1 Bharat Lalsingh Patil is hereby

convicted of the offence punishable under section
302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of
Rs.1,000/ (Rs. One Thousand only) and in default of
payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment of
one month.
[2] The accused No.1 Bharat Lalsingh Patil and accused
No.2 Lalsingh Shripat Patil are hereby convicted of
the offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for four years by each and pay fine of
Rs.1,000/ (Rs. One Thousand Only) each and in
default of payment of fine to suffer simple
imprisonment of one month each.
[3] Both the sentences of accused No.1 shall run

concurrently.
[4] Accused No.2 to surrender his bail bond, he be taken
in custody.
[5] The accused No.1 is in custody since 14.01.2019 and
accused No.2 was in custody from 28.01.2019 to
28.03.2019. They shall get set off as per Section 428
of Code of Criminal Procedure.
[6] Muddemal Property Article1 to Article11 and
Article13, being worthless be destroyed and white
colour metal ring Article12 be returned to P.W.10
Durvesh, after appeal period is over.
[7] A copy of this judgment be given to both the convicts
free of costs.
May 13, 2021. ( P. Y. Ladekar )

Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon.
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file order/judgment are same,
word to word, as per the original order.
Name of Stenographer : Shailesh S. Puranik.
Name of the Court : District Judge-1 & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.
Date of Order : 13.05.2021
Order typed & signed by
the Presiding Officer on : Typed on 13.05.2021 Signed on 13.05.2021
Order uploaded on : 13.05.2021

display_pdf-5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

display_pdf-5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

­1­ Sessions Case No.

On a self nurtured doubt a saviour of life (doctor) has

2] Prosecution case against the accused as per complaint

3] On 13.01.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., his wife Vaishali

4] Based on it, Varangaon Police registered A.D.No.0 of 2019

5] Learned Magistrate committed the case as per provision

6] After hearing learned P.P. and learned advocate for the

7] In support of the case, prosecution has examined total 19

8] P.W.13 A.P.I. Sarika Kodape has registered A.D. at

9] Apart from the complaint Exh.63 and F.I.R. Exh.64, the

10] The spot panchanama Exh.74 of the house of accused No.1

11] Letter Exh.86 for pre arrest medical check up of accused

12] The photographs Exh.98 to Exh.103 along with certificate

along with certificate Exh.116 under section 65­B of the Indian

13] Order Exh.120 of P.W.17 Pratap Ingle directing Police

14] Arrest Memo of accused No.1 is at Exh.129, letter Exh.130

and photographs by doctors, letter Exh.133 to Agriculture Officer,

15] Station diary entry Exh.137 about proceeding to spot of

16] Letter Exh.146 addressed to Land Survey Office, Jamner

to the panchas. Exh.149 is station diary entry dated 17.01.2019 about

17] C.A. Report Exh.166 is about obtaining controlled female

18] Letters Exh.175 and Exh.176 are addressed to

19] Exh.186 is provisional postmortem report/cause of death

20] Thereafter, statements of the accused under section 313 of

22] He has also submitted that on 13.01.2019 his son Durvesh

therefore, with a view to give her good treatment and recovery, he

23] He also submitted that on 14.01.2019 at 02.00 a.m. P.W.1

24] The accused No.2, in his written statement of defence

25] Following points came up for determination and findings

27] Learned P.P. Submitted that the case of the prosecution is

28] The evidence of the witnesses is supported by the

29] C.A. Reports support the evidence of the doctor and

Evidence Act, but there is no explanation and there is no probable fact

30] In support of his arguments, learned P.P. Relied on the

Maharashtra reported in 2021 DGLS (Bom.) 397 which is a case of

circumstantial evidence and observation of the Supreme Court in

801 has been highlighted which basically says that in case of

31] Similarly in the case of Rahul Vs. State of Haryana

reported in 2021 DGLS (SC) 124 it is observed that merely because

two of the witnesses are related to the deceased, that by itself, is no

of the deceased is supported by the medical evidence of asphyxial

32] The case of R. Damodaran Vs. State represented by

the Inspector of Police reported in 2021 DGLS(SC) 96 is again in

respect of circumstantial evidence. In para 18 of the said judgment it

death and it was observed that one of the circumstances which is

34] In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram reported in 2006

106 of Indian Evidence Act, it is observed that the principle is well

to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the

38] Further, the accused has explained that these injuries

39] In support of his arguments that in the circumstantial

reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1974 Bombay H.C. Nagpur

[2] Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1982

[3] Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra

reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622.

[4] Satish Nirankari Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017

STPL 8896 SC.

STPL 3370 SC.

Maharashtra Vs. Pramod Dhanraj Gajbhiye and others reported

in 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 1863 Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench

and Maula Baksh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1980 STPL

of delay in filing the F.I.R. and recording statement, learned advocate

of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1979 SC 135 and State of

Maharashtra Vs. Wafati Babu Qureshi and others reported in

1997 ALL MR (Cri) 518 Bombay.

1 Sessions Case No.

along with certificate Exh.116 under section 65B of the Indian

AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2 :