Balu Barku Hilam Vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

 [-1-]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

 APPEAL NO.259 OF 2006

¶5

 Balu Barku Hilam ]
 Aged about 40 years ]
 residing at Kombhivali, ]
 Adivasi Wadi, Tal.Khalapur ]
 Dist.Raigad ]
 At present Detained at ]
 C/3216, Kolhapur Central ]
 Prison, Kolhapur ]..Appellant/
 Accused
 Vs.

¶6

 1. State of Maharashtra ]
 At the instance of ]
 2. Hari Damodar Veer ]
 Police Station, ]
 Kolhapur ]..Respondents

¶7

 ....
 Smt.B.P.Jakhade Advocate (appointed)
 for Appellant
 Ms.M.M.Deshmukh APP for the State

¶8

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
 DATE: APRIL 04, 2008

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]:

¶10

 1. Through this appeal, the appellant-original
 accused has challenged the judgment and order dated
 20th July, 2001 passed by the learned Sessions
 Judge Raigad-Alibag. The learned Sessions Judge

¶11

 [-2-]

¶12

 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC
 and sentenced him to R.I. for life and fine of
 Rs.1,000/- i/d R.I. for one month.

¶13

 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as
 under:

¶14

 . The appellant-accused was married to Bhima
 (deceased). They had three children i.e. one son
 Ramdas and two daughters. Unfortunately Ramdas
 died. The accused desired to have a son and for
 that purpose he wished to marry for second time.
 However, Bhima used to oppose the second marriage,
 therefore, there used to be frequent quarrels
 between the couple. The said quarrels were also
 witnessed by P.W.5 Surekha who is the daughter of
 the appellant and deceased Bhima. At the time of
 incident, accused along with his wife Bhima were
 returning home from village Kumbhivali. On the
 way, there was quarrel between them and accused
 smashed the head of his wife Bhima with stone. Due
 to assault, Bhima died. Thereafter, accused
 returned home and told his daughter P.W.5 Surekha
 that Bhima is lying dead in the forest and Surekha
 should get her. At that time, the accused was

¶15

 [-3-]

¶16

 wearing white shirt (article 7) which was stained
 with blood. P.W.5 Surekha went and saw the dead
 body of Bhima and she reported the fact to the
 brother of the accused who reported the matter to
 the police patil P.W.1 Hari Veer. Police Patil
 went and saw the dead body of Bhima and he found
 that there were injuries all over the body. Hence,
 he lodged his FIR Exhibit-16 to the police station.
 Thereafter, investigation commenced. After
 completion of investigation, charge sheet came to
 be filed.

¶17

 3. Charge came to be framed against the
 appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302
 of IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the said charge
 and claimed to be tried. His defence is that he
 and his wife Bhima were returning home. At that
 time, he had consumed alcohol. As he was under the
 influence of alcohol, he took a nap. When he
 awoke, he found that his wife was lying dead.
 After going through the evidence adduced by the
 prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge convicted
 and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph

¶18

 1 above. Hence, this appeal.

¶19

 4. We have heard the learned advocate for the

¶20

 [-4-]

¶21

 appellant and the learned APP for the State. We
 have perused the judgment and order as well as the
 evidence on record. After carefully considering
 the matter, we are of the opinion that this appeal
 deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

 5. From the evidence of P.W.3 Dr.Mahesh
 Kalangutkar, it is clear that death of Bhima was a
 homicidal death. Dr.Kalangutkar noticed 12
 external injuries on the body of Bhima i.e. on the
 head, mandible and other parts of body. On
 internal examination, he found fractures of (i)
 Right angle of mandible, (2) right humerus middle
 1/3rd (shaft), 3) right femur shaft middle 1/3rd,
 4) Right 1st and 2nd rib mid clav. line, 5) left
 1st to 2nd ribs mid clav. line and 6) sternum
 middle 1/3rd. According to Dr.Manish Kalambuskar,
 the external injuries were ante mortem and could be
 caused by any hard and blunt object. Doctor has
 stated that cause of death was due to extra
 cranial/intra cranial haemorrhage coupled with
 right vetricular perforation and bi-lateral
 haemothorax and multiple fractures. He has also
 opined that with the multiple hits with a stone,the
 injuries as noticed by him on body of Bhima could

¶23

 [-5-]

¶24

 be possible. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.3 Dr.
 Manish Kalambuskar, it is seen that death of Bhima
 is a homicidal death.

¶25

 6. We have already observed that death of Bhima is
 a homicidal death in which case, it is necessary to
 see who is the author of the homicidal death.
 There is no eye witness in the present case. The
 present case is based only on circumstantial
 evidence. The circumstantial evidence is in the
 nature of last seen together, seizure of blood
 stained shirt (article 7) which was on the person
 of the accused, corroboration received to the
 prosecution evidence by the statement of the
 accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

 7. Now, we shall deal with evidence of last seen.
 From the evidence of P.W.5 Surekha, it is seen that
 her parents i.e. accused and deceased Bhima left
 home together to go to village Kumbhivali.
 However, in the evening, her father returned home
 alone. At that time, shirt (article 7) on his
 person was found stained with blood. Thereafter,
 Surekha and her sister went and saw dead body of
 their mother lying in the forest.

¶27

 [-6-]

¶28

 8. P.W.2 Madhukar Labade has also stated about

¶29

 Bhima and accused returning home at around 5.30
 p.m. on the fateful day. Thereafter Bhima was not

¶30

 found alive. It is pertinent to note that in the
 statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused has

¶31

 also admitted that he had gone to village
 Kumbhivali with his wife. However, he has stated
 that as he was under the influence of alcohol, he
 took a nap and when he woke up he found that his
 wife was dead. Thereafter, he picked up his wife

¶32

 and brought her home. However, the stand of the
 accused that after he woke up on seeing his wife he
 brought her home is falsified by the evidence of
 P.W.5 Surekha who is the daughter of the accused.
 Surekha has clearly stated that accused came home
 alone and he informed Surekha that her mother was
 lying in the forest and she should bring her back.
 We have already observed that witnesses P.W.2
 Madhukar Labade and P.W.5 Surekha have stated that
 deceased was last seen in the company of accused.
 Nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve
 their testimony. Thus, it is established that
 deceased was last seen in the company of deceased.

¶33

 [-7-]

¶34

 9. Another circumstance which goes against the
 accused is that his shirt (article 7) came to be
 seized. The said shirt had blood stains. The said
 shirt was sent to C.A. and as per the report, the
 shirt had blood stains of same group as that of the
 deceased. Blood group of the accused is "B" and
 blood group of the deceased was "O" and on the
 shirt, blood of "O" group was found. P.W.4 Vilas
 Khedekar has deposed about seizure of the shirt
 from the house of the accused. This witness has
 not been shaken during his cross examination.

¶35

 10. Looking to all these facts, we are of the view
 that we find such a chain of circumstances as to
 lead to the conclusion that it was the accused and
 the accused alone who committed murder of his wife
 Bhima. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly
 convicted and sentenced the appellant.

¶36

 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The
 appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the
 sentence.

¶37

[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [F.I.REBELLO, J.]

¶38

 [-8-]

Balu Barku Hilam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balu Barku Hilam 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

Kulappa Vithal Teli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Govind Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nityanand @ Nitu Ganpat Yadav and Ors.

Vicky Ganpat Lad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeeo Bipul Goswami Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Bhawanji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra