Dismissed

Sadashiv Govind Kesarkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Mar 2007APEAL/753/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged his conviction and life imprisonment for murdering his wife and son under Section 302 IPC. The High Court examined the evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, the testimony of child and adult witnesses, and recovery of a blood-stained scythe.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. No interference with the conviction and sentence of the trial court is granted.

Sadashiv Govind Kesarkar Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2003

¶4

 Sadashiv Govind Kesarkar ]
 Kolhapur Central Prison ]
 Kalanba, Dist: Kolhapur ]..Appellant

¶5

 versus

¶6

 State of Maharashtra ..Respondents

¶7

 Mrs. L. P. Khemani, Advocate appointed for the
 Appellant.

¶8

 Mr. P. A. Pol, APP for the Respondents - State.

¶9

CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, &
SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.

¶10

 DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2007.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per: D. G. Deshpande, J. )

¶12

 1. Heard Advocate appointed for the appellant -
 accused, who has filed this appeal, through jail and
 the learned APP for the State.

¶13

 2. By this appeal, the accused is challenging
 his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
 Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life
 awarded to him along with fine.

¶14

:2:

¶15

 3. Conviction of the accused is in the

¶16

 following background - accused Sadashiv was living
 at village with his wife Snehlata, son Avdhoot and
 two daughters Tejaswini and Tanuja. Everything was
 going on smoothly till Avdhoot was born because
 thereafter accused started carrying suspicion that
 his wife had illicit relations with Suresh Kokitkar
 and he was the father of Avdhoot. Because of the
 suspicion accused used to assault Snehlata but
 through mediators the matter was pacified. However,
 on 29.3.2002 at 6 a.m. accused killed Snehlata and
 son Avdhoot. Tejaswini (P.W. 6) saw the accused
 while holding blood stained scythe. Thereafter
 accused was seen waiting outside the house of Suresh
 Kokitkar. Suresh Kokitkar however took shelter in
 the house of Laxman Dadu Patil. By that time
 Baburao Ramchandra Kanade reached the spot and asked
 the accused about the happening and accused gave
 extra judicial confession that he murdered his wife
 and son. Then Baburao Kanade (P.W. 1) went to the
 house of the accused and found Snehlata and Avdhoot
 dead.

¶17

 4. Information was given to P.W. 9 Shivaji
 Raikar. Along with Police Patil, P.W. 9 Shivaji

¶18

:3:

¶19

 Raikar went to the spot and took away scythe from

¶20

 the accused. It was kept at the house of Vishnu
 Kesarkar by Shivaji Raikar. Police Station,
 Gadhinglaj was informed and P.I. Jadhavar came.
 Accused was arrested with blood stained clothes.
 FIR was obtained from Baburao Kanade (P.W. 1). The
 investigation was carried out, inquest panchnama and
 post mortem was conducted of the two bodies i.e.
 Snehlata and Avdhoot was recovered. Spot panchnama
 was made. All incriminating articles were recovered

¶21

 under the panchnama and sent to the C.A. and then
 charge sheet came to be filed. Before the trial
 court, the defence of the accused was of total
 denial and false implication. The trial court found
 that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the
 guilt of the accused, and, therefore, convicted the

¶22

 accused, as stated above. Hence, this Appeal.

¶23

 5. Advocate for the accused contended that the

¶24

 entire case of the prosecution was based on the

¶25

 testimony of a child witness Tejaswani (P.W. 6)

¶26

 aged about 9 years and therefore her evidence was
 required to be accepted with a pinch of salt.
 According to her, the conduct of the child witness
 was unnatural and therefore she was not liable to be

¶27

:4:

¶28

 believed.

¶29

 6. Advocate for the accused also contended that
 there is no evidence to prove motive or intention,
 that is, to prove that the accused was suspecting
 that Avdhoot was a son from Suresh Kokitkar begotten
 to Snehlata. She also contended that evidence of
 other witnesses was full of suspicion and there were
 material omissions and contradictions and therefore
 the case of the prosecution was liable to be
 rejected and the judgment of the trial court was
 liable to be upset.

¶30

 7. On the other hand, the learned APP contended
 that this was a full proof case against the accused.
 The prosecution has succeeded in proving the motive.
 There was eye witness, other corroborating evidence
 of recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused,
 his extra judicial confession, recovery of scythe,
 were all found sufficient by the trial court to
 convict the accused and hence no interference was
 called.

¶31

 8. We have given our anxious consideration to
 the submissions made by the Advocate for the Accused

¶32

:5:

¶33

 and the learned APP, and, we are of the view that no

¶34

 fault can be found with the judgment of the trial
 court and this appeal is required to be dismissed
 for the following reasons.

¶35

 9. P.W. 1 is Baburao Kanade to whom accused
 made extra judicial confession. He has stated that
 on 29.3.2002 his mother woke him up at 6.15 a.m.

¶36

 and told him to see what has happened as somebody
 was crying in the lane. He therefore came out of
 the house, saw the accused standing at the door of
 Suresh Kokitkar. Accused was holding scythe in his
 hand and he asked accused as to what happened and

¶37

 accused told him "Babuanna I had killed my wife and

¶38

my son." Accused further uttered that Suresh
 Kokitkar had love affair with his wife. P.W. 1

¶39

 heard accused uttering "Suresh you come outside."

¶40

 Thereafter he went to the house of the accused and
 saw the bodies of Snehlata and Avdhoot. They had
 injuries on their neck. Then he came back to his
 house gave a phone call to Shri Raikar Sir (may be
 Raikar teacher) to come with Police Patil and Raikar
 Sir took away the scythe from the hand of the
 accused. It was stained with blood. There were

¶41

 blood stains on the body and clothes of of accused.
 Then the Police Patil gave information to the police

¶42

:6:

¶43

 station, police came and this witness gave a report
 Exhibit 34. He identified scythe Article 7.

¶44

 10. P.W. 1 was subjected to cross-examination,
 wherein he has stated that he was retired
 Ex-Armyman. He was also examined about some
 election of Ramling Vikas Seva Sanstha, but
 absolutely nothing could be brought out in the
 cross-examination to create any doubt about the
 testimony of this witness. He is totally
 disinterested either in the accused or the
 prosecution. Extra Judicial confession made to him,
 cannot be said to be unnatural because it was
 pursuant to the question put by this witness to the
 accused that the accused made the extra judicial
 confession. The words used are very significant

¶45

"Babuanna I had killed my wife and my son." The use

¶46

 of the words "Babuanna" clearly shows that witness

¶47

 P.W. 1 was well known and acquainted to the accused
 and he is not a stranger. He was cross-examined
 about the colour of saree of Snehlata and number of
 injuries. He was unable to give those details, but
 that does not affect his testimony at all. He

¶48

 denied the suggestion that no confession was made to
 him and no scythe was seen by him in the hands of

¶49

:7:

¶50

 the accused.

¶51

 11. There is no doubt about the fact that

¶52

 Snehlata and Avdhoot were killed and their death is
 not accidental or suicidal. Therefore, there is no
 necessity to discuss that part of the evidence or
 even with the post mortem or panchnama and also
 there is no necessity to consider the spot of the
 offence because the bodies were admittedly in the
 house of the accused himself.

¶53

 12. The next important witness of the
 prosecution is P.W. 4 Mahadev Rashivade he was
 called by P.I. Jadhavar (P.W. 14), in whose
 presence Shivaji Raikar produced scythe, panchnama
 was prepared. He identified the scythe. Panchnama
 is Exhibit 41. He identified the scythe - Article

¶54

 7. Then arrest panchnama was made in his presence
 and he stated that there were blood stains on the
 clothes of the accused. Those clothes were seized
 and sealed vide Exhibit 42. The cross-examination
 of this witness, has not resulted in shaking the
 credibility of this witness, in the least.

¶55

 13. The next important witness is a minor girl

¶56

:8:

¶57

 Tejaswani (P.W. 6) aged about 9 years. The trial
 court verified that she understands the oath and
 also understands the questions put to her, therefore
 oath was administered to her and then after stating
 about the relationship with the deceased, the
 accused, Avdhoot, etc. that her mother and Avdhoot
 died on 29.3.2002. On that day she got up at about
 6 a.m. as her school time was 7 a.m. to 11 a.m.
 She heard some sound, she got up and came outside
 and found that in the first room Avdhoot was lying
 inside the door and blood was oozing from his neck
 and her father was standing at the door with scythe
 in his hand. There was blood over the scythe. Her
 sister Tanuja came and told her that "Mammi was
lying near bathroom and Pappa had assaulted mummy by
scythe." In the cross-examination witness stated
 that she came in the court with her two maternal
 uncles Vinumama and Sachinmama who were present on
 that date also. She was not given the statement to
 read (may be by the police). She stated that she
 could not tell on which part of the scythe there was
 blood. She could not tell whether Avdhoot was lying
 on left or right side and how much blood was coming
 from the neck of Avdhoot. She stated that her
 father was standing his face down condition. He was

¶58

:9:

¶59

 shouting. That she would not tell the words uttered
 by her father. She denied the suggestion that she
 was deposing falsely. There is absolutely no
 cross-examination worthy of consideration. No
 motive attributed to the witness why she will depose
 against her own father. No motive is attributed to
 her. There are no omissions or contradictions in

¶60

 her evidence at all with reference to her police
 statement. In fact these two witnesses i.e. P.W.
 6 and P.W. 9, itself are sufficient to prove the
 guilt of the accused. However, there is one more
 witness P.W. 8 Suresh Kokitkar (P.W. 8), a person
 about whom the accused was bearing suspicion that
 Snehlata had illicit relations. He had stated that
 on 29.3.2002 he was sleeping in his house, at about
 6.30 a.m. he heard the shouts, he went outside the
 house and he saw accused coming to his lane by
 holding the scythe. Ananda Shinde was behind the
 accused and Ananda gave a signal to the witness to
 go and therefore P.W. 8 Suresh Kokitkar entered the
 house of Laxman Dadu Patil and bolted it from
 inside. Accused came there, shouted "You come

¶61

outside, I will kill you" and that he is coming out
 after killing his wife and son and he gave two blows

¶62

 to the door of Laxman Patil. In the

¶63

 :10:

¶64

 cross-examination, the witness stated that he was

¶65

 not aware whether accused had suspicion about the
 character of his wife. He was confronted with his
 statement to the police wherein he has stated that
 he had learnt that accused had beaten her wife on
 account of his suspicion. He also stated that he
 saw the accused on that day accused tried to assault
 him by throwing the scythe from his person. There
 is nothing in the cross-examination to falsify this
 witness. All this evidence is corroborated by P.W.
 9 Shivaji Raikar. He has stated that in Raikar Lane
 he saw accused in front of house of Suresh Kokitkar.
 Accused had scythe in his hand. It was blood
 stained. He asked the accused "Sadu what you had
done this." Then the accused told that "he had
killed Lata and his son". Witness also saw blood
 stains on the body and clothes of the accused and
 that he was in excited condition. Accused also
 stated that Suresh Kokitkar should be given in his
 custody so that he could kill him. Then the witness
 showed courage to embrass the accused and took away
 scythe from his hand and kept in the house of Vishnu
 Kesarkar, which was recovered by the police.
 Evidence of this witness also fully corroborates the
 prosecution case. There is absolutely nothing to

¶66

 :11:

¶67

 doubt about the veracity of this witness.

¶68

 14. For proving the motive and intention of the
 accused, the prosecution has examined P.W. 10 Suman
 Sadashiv Raikar, mother of deceased Snehlata and
 grand mother of Avdhoot. She has stated that after
 the birth of Avdhoot, accused started quarrelling
 with Snehlata due to suspicion of her character.
 She has stated that on that count accused had
 assaulted Snehlata with a steel rod and Snehlata was
 admitted in the hospital of Dr. Malvi at
 Gadhinglaj. Then Snehlata started living with her
 mother. Thereafter because through mediator accused
 begged pardon, he was forgiven and Snehlata went to
 reside with the accused but this ill-treatment and
 suspicion continued. On 29.3.2002 at 6.30 a.m. she
 heard the shouts of ladies, she came to her court
 yard and went to the house of Snehlata, she saw the
 accused standing at the door of his house with a
 blood stained scythe in his hand and Sadashiv was
 shouting "Govind Kesarkar Yache Lekane Zenda Lavla".

¶69

 Then she saw the body of her daughter Snehlata and
 grand-son Avdhoot. She was cross-examined about the
 ill-treatment and her so-called inaction of not
 lodging report about beating to Snehlata by rod etc.

¶70

 :12:

¶71

 But nothing fruitful has come on the record. This
 is a fully proved case against the accused. The
 trial court was perfectly justified in convicting
 the accused for the offence of murder. We find no
 reasons to interfere, hence appeal is dismissed.
 Office to communicate this order to the accused.
 Rs.500/- is the fee quantified for the Advocate

¶72

 appointed for the accused.

¶73

(SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)

Sadashiv Govind Kesarkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv Govind Kesarkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Namdev Bhau Gare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambadas Mohan Handore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohhmed Hussain Mohammed Siddiquie Hamidani Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Jahir Ahmad Pyarekhan and Others

Sadashiv Govind Kesarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Ganpat Narale Vs the State of Maharashtra