Dismissed

Kulappa Vithal Teli v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Apr 2008APEAL/59/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2006, dismissed an appeal against a conviction and life sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC. The court confirmed the lower court's finding that the appellant assaulted and killed his wife with a sickle, relying on eyewitness testimony and forensic reports.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC are confirmed; the appellant is to serve the sentence in jail.

Kulappa Vithal Teli Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 .[1].

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.59 OF 2006

¶4

 Kulappa Vithal Teli, )
 Age : 69 years, )
 Convict Prisoner )
 No.C/14502, Yerwada )
 Central Prison, )
 Pune. ) ..APPELLANT.
 (Orig.Accused)
 Versus
 The State of Maharashtra) .RESPONDENT.

¶5

 . . .
 Mr.A.G.Toraskar, Adv. appointed for the Appellant.
 Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶7

DATED : APRIL 03, 2008.

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) :

¶9

 . Through this Appeal, the appellant i.e.
 original accused has challenged the judgment and
 order dated 31st August, 2005 passed by the
 learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
 Solapur in Sessions Case No.79 of 2005. By the
 said judgment and order, the learned Sessions
 Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of
 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R.I. for
 life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-in default R.I.

¶10

 .[2].

¶11

 for six months.

¶12

 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as
 under :

¶13

 . Deceased Rakhmabai was the wife of the
 appellant. The accused and his wife were residing
 at Hatture Vasti, District : Solapur. They used
 to go to the agricultural field of one Sanjay
 Jamma for grazing their sheep. The appellant was
 suspecting the character of his wife. On the day
 of the incident, the appellant and his wife had
 gone to the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma for
 grazing their sheep. PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh who is
 the complainant in the present case used to reside
 in the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma. He was
 present in the field of Sanjay at that time and he
 had taken the cattle of Sanjay for grazing in the
 said field. The complainant Mahadeo knew the
 accused and his wife as they used to come everyday
 to the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma for
 grazing their sheep. On the day of the incident
 also, the appellant and his wife came to the field
 of Sanjay Jamma for grazing their sheep. At that

¶14

 .[3].

¶15

 time, as per his usual practice the appellant was

¶16

 holding a sickle in his hand by which he used to
 cut branches of trees and shrubs for their sheep,
 and also for collecting firewood. After some

¶17

 time, the complainant heard the voice of

¶18

 Rakhmabai. She was shouting "Aai Ga, Aai Ga" (in
 Marathi). On the complainant looking in that

¶19

 direction, he saw that the appellant was
 assaulting his wife Rakhmabai by sickle on both
 side of neck and also on other parts of the body.
 The complainant shouted and ran towards them. On

¶20

 seeing the complainant coming towards them, the
 accused started running away from the spot. The
 appellant dropped the sickle at the spot. The
 complainant immediately caught hold of the

¶21

 appellant. In a short time, police arrived at the
 spot and the appellant came to be arrested.
 Thereafter blood stained clothes on the person of

¶22

 the appellant came to be seized. After completion
 of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be
 filed. In due course, the case was committed to
 the Court of Session.

¶23

 3. The charge came to be framed against the

¶24

 .[4].

¶25

 appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant
 pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed
 to be tried. His defence is that of total denial
 and false implication. After going through the
 evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned
 Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the
 appellant, as stated in Para 1 above. Hence this
 Appeal.

¶26

 4. We have heard Mr.Toraskar learned Advocate
 appointed for the appellant and Mr.Hingorani
 learned APP for the respondent-State. We have
 also perused the judgment and order passed by the
 learned Sessions Judge as well as the record in
 the present case. After carefully considering the
 matter, we are of the opinion that the conviction
 and sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to
 be confirmed.

¶27

 5. The prosecution case is mainly founded on
 the evidence of the complainant. The complainant
 PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh is an eye witness. He is
 the sole eye witness in the present case. PW-4
 Mahadeo Deshmukh has stated that he was residing

¶28

 .[5].

¶29

 in the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma. He was

¶30

 in employment of Sanjay Jamma. He used to take
 cattle of Sanjay Jamma for grazing in the said
 field. The complainant knew the accused and his
 wife Rakhmabai as they used to come everyday to
 the agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma for grazing
 sheep. On the day of the incident also PW-4
 Mahadeo Deshmukh was in the field of Sanjay Jamma
 grazing the cattle and the appellant and his wife
 were also there in the field of Sanjay Jamma
 grazing their sheep. As per his usual practice
 the appellant was carrying a sickle with him for
 cutting branches of trees and shrubs, and also for
 collecting firewoods. After sometime the
 complainant PW-4 Mahadeo Deshmukh heard the shouts
 of Rakhmabai shouting "Aai Ga, Aai Ga" (in
 Marathi). When the complainant looked in that
 direction, he saw the appellant assaulting his
 wife Rakhmabai by sickle on both sides of neck and
 other parts of the body. The complainant shouted
 loudly and ran towards them. The complainant
 chased the accused and warned him to drop the
 sickle at once otherwise he would give a blow of
 lathi which was in his hand. Thereupon, the

¶31

 .[6].

¶32

 appellant immediately dropped the sickle on the
 spot. Thereafter the complainant caught hold of
 the appellant. On hearing the shouts of the
 complainant, PW-11 Basavraj Deshmukh who was
 nearby came to the spot. Within a short time the
 police arrived at the spot.

¶33

 6. Despite lengthy cross-examination of PW-4

¶34

 Mahadeo Deshmukh, he has not been shaken in his
 cross-examination. On going through the evidence
 of this witness (PW-4) we find his evidence to be
 totally reliable, and hence we have no hesitation
 in relying on the same. It is the prosecution
 case that the motive for the appellant to assault
 his wife Rakhmabai was that he suspected her
 character. The motive has been brought on record
 through the evidence of PW-5 Shrishail Dastapure.
 This witness was residing as a tenant in the house
 of the son of the appellant. He has stated that
 since two months prior to the incident, the
 accused and his wife started residing with their
 son Bhimashanker who was the landlord of PW-5.
 PW-5 Shrishail Dastapure has stated that the
 accused used to suspect character and chastity of

¶35

 .[7].

¶36

 his wife hence there was frequent quarrels between
 them. The son of the accused had purchased sheep
 for the accused so that the accused could remain
 busy. The accused and his wife Rakhmabai used to
 take sheep for the purpose of grazing in the
 agricultural field of Sanjay Jamma. Thus, the
 prosecution has proved the motive for the offence
 through the evidence of PW-5 Srishail Dastapure.

¶37

 7. Besides the evidence of PW-4 Mahadeo
 Deshmukh who is an eye witness and the evidence of
 PW-5 Shrishail Dastapure, the prosecution has also
 relied upon circumstantial evidence which is in
 the nature of seizure of clothes of the accused

¶38

 person. From the evidence of PW-4 Mahadeo
 Deshmukh it is seen that immediately after the
 accused assaulted his wife Rakhmabai, complainant
 Mahadeo shouted and ran towards them. On seeing
 the complainant coming towards them, the accused
 started running away from the spot. The appellant
 dropped the sickle at the spot. The complainant
 immediately caught hold of the appellant and
 thereafter, police arrived at the spot. Till the
 time that the police arrived on the spot, PW-4

¶39

 .[8].

¶40

 Mahadeo continued to hold the accused person. The
 clothes of the accused were blood stained and said
 clothes came to be seized by the police. Panch
 witness PW-2 Chidanand Nad has deposed about the
 arrest of accused at the spot and seizure of the
 blood stained clothes which were on the person of
 the accused. These clothes were sent to the
 Chemical Analyser and the Chemical Analyser’s
 report (Exh.38) shows that the clothes Nehru-shirt
 (article 8) and Dhoti (article 9) of the accused
 person were having blood stains of "B" group. So
 also, the sickle which came to be seized from the
 spot had blood stains of "B" group. The
 prosecution case is corroborated by the CA report
 (Exh.38). Looking to the evidence of PW-4 Mahadeo
 Deshmukh who is an eye witness to the incident and
 the other evidence on record including the CA
 report (Exh.38), we are of the opinion that the
 learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and
 sentenced the appellant. No case for interference
 is made out.

¶41

 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
 The conviction and sentence recorded by the

¶42

 .[9].

¶43

 learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,
 Solapur in Sessions Case No.79 of 2005 is
 confirmed. The appellant is in jail. He shall
 serve out the sentence.

¶44

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)

Kulappa Vithal Teli v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulappa Vithal Teli 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

Barkya @ Balu Yadav Khalge Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Pravin Ashok Rakh

The State of Maharashtra Vs Pravin Ashok Rakh

Ramesh Govind Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

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

Krishnath Yashwant Powar Vs the State of Maharashtra