Dismissed

Nandkumar Tukaram Dupade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Aug 2013APEAL/899/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentencing of an appellant under Section 302 IPC for murdering his 12-year-old daughter with an axe. The court upheld the lower court's finding. The appellant dragged his daughter into a school office and struck her on the head. The court noted the extensive injuries, the weapon used, the victim's age, and the lack

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed convicts affirmed sentenced affirmed

Nandkumar Tukaram Dupade Vs the State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

APEAL899_2010

¶2

vidya

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2010

¶5

Nandkumar Tukaram Dupade R/o. Kolegaon, Tal. Malshiras, District Solapur.

¶6

District Solapur. ... Appellant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Smt. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, Advocate appointed for the appellant. Mrs. S.V. Gajare-Dhumal, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM: MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶9

AUGUST 5 , 2013.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶11

The appellant/original accused has preferred this appeal against

¶12

the judgment and order dated 17^th May, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras in Sessions Case No. 2/2007. By the

¶13

said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302 of IPC. For the said offence, the appellant was

¶14

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, S.I. for one month.

¶15

1 of 8

¶16

APEAL899_2010

¶17

The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:

¶18

The appellant was married to Thakubai. They had one daughter named Sonali, who was about 12 years old at the time of incident. Chandrashekhar, brother of the appellant was serving in Vijaysinha Mohite-Patil High School, Kolegaon, Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur. On the date of incident i.e. 26^th July, 2006, PW-1 Dupade was holding the charge of Head Master of the school. At about 2.15 p.m. PW-1 Dupade was in his office. The office clerk Jadhav and peon Gaikwad were also in the office. At that time, the appellant came to the office and started asking the office clerk to give copies of the school record relating to the service record of his brother Chandrashekhar. Chandrasekhar was serving as Assistant teacher in the said school. The clerk told that the record was not available as after the transfer of a teacher to another school, the record is sent to that school. The appellant started abusing clerk Jadhav, PW-1 Dupade and Gaikwad peon. At that time, Thakubai, wife of the appellant and Sonali, daughter of the appellant were proceeding by the road in front of the school. Thakubai was carrying a bundle of firewood and Sonali was carrying her books. Thakubai told the appellant not to behave in such a manner and to come home. At that time, the appellant took out an axe from

¶19

2 of 8

¶20

APEAL899_2010

¶21

the bundle of firewood carried by Thakubai and started dragging Thakubai and Sonali towards the office of the school. The appellant then dragged them inside the office. At that time, PW-1 Dupade , clerk Jadhav and peon Gaikwad were present in the office. The appellant started asking Thakubai and Sonali where they had stayed. Sonali replied that she and her mother had come there without staying anywhere. The appellant then gave a blow with an axe on the head of Sonali. PW-1 Dupade tried to catch hold of the appellant but appellant ran away after dropping the axe in the office. Sonali was taken to the hospital by PW-3 Dharmaraj. However, Sonali was declared dead before admission. PW-1 Dupade then lodged the FIR (Exhibit 11). Thereafter investigation commenced. The dead body of Sonali was sent for post-mortem. During post-mortem, it was noticed that Sonali had sustained one incised wound over midfrontal region along the hairline to mid occipital region 10 cms X 4 cms. X 4 cms. with fracture of skull underneath bone and laceration of brain with extensive bleeding. One abrasion was also found on the right ring finger of Sonali. The appellant was arrested on the next day i.e. 27^th July, 2006. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.

¶22

3 of 8

¶23

APEAL899_2010

¶24

The charge came to be framed against the appellant under section

¶25

302 of IPC for causing death of Sonali by assaulting her with an axe on the head. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal.

¶26

We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered their rival submissions, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted his daughter Sonali with an axe on the head and caused her death.

¶27

The conviction is based on the evidence of PW-1 Dupade, who was holding the charge of Head Master of Vijaysinha Mohite-Patil High School, Kolegaon. The incident occurred on 26^th July, 2006. At about 2.15 p.m. PW-1 Dupade was in his office. The office clerk Jadhav and peon

¶28

Gaikwad were also in the office. At that time, the appellant came to the

¶29

4 of 8

¶30

APEAL899_2010

¶31

office and started asking the office clerk to give copies of the school record relating to the service record of his brother Chandrashekhar. Chandrasekhar was serving as Assistant teacher in the said school. The clerk told that the record was not available as after the transfer of a teacher to another school, the record is sent to that school. The appellant started abusing clerk Jadhav, PW-1 Dupade and Gaikwad peon. At that time, Thakubai, wife of the appellant and Sonali, daughter of the appellant were proceeding by the road in front of the school. Thakubai was carrying a bundle of firewood and Sonali was carrying her books. Thakubai told the appellant not to behave in such a manner and to come home. At that time, the appellant took out an axe from the bundle of firewood carried by Thakubai and started dragging Thakubai and Sonali towards the office of the school. The appellant then dragged them inside the office. The appellant started asking Thakubai and Sonali where they had stayed. Sonali replied that she and her mother had come there without staying anywhere. The appellant then gave a blow with an axe on the head of Sonali. PW-1 Dupade tried to catch hold of the appellant but appellant ran away after dropping the axe in the office. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 Dupade so as to disbelieve his evidence. We

¶32

5 of 8

¶33

APEAL899_2010

¶34

find that his evidence inspires implicit trust and confidence and we have no hesitation in relying on the same. The evidence of PW-1 Dupade clearly shows that the appellant assaulted his daughter Sonali with an axe on the head.

¶35

That Sonali died a homicidal death has not been disputed by the prosecution but the defence of the appellant is that he has not caused the death of Sonali and at the relevant time, he was not in the village. The evidence of PW-1 Dupade clearly shows that the appellant was very much in the village and he assaulted his daughter Sonali with an axe and caused her death.

¶36

Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved that the appellant committed the murder of his daughter Sonali by assaulting her with an axe on the head.

¶37

The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the case would not fall under section 302 of IPC but it would fall under section 304 Part II of IPC because the appellant did not have any intention to cause the death

¶38

6 of 8

¶39

APEAL899_2010

¶40

of his daughter Sonali. She submitted that only one blow with an axe was

¶41

given to Sonali and thereafter the appellant ran away. It is seen that the appellant has assaulted his daughter Sonali with an axe, which is a deadly weapon, on the vital part of the body i.e. head. The injuries as seen from the post-mortem notes, which are reflected in paragraph 2 above, are extensive in nature. The incised wound on the head was 10 cms X 4 cms. X 4 cms. with fracture of skull underneath bone and laceration of brain. It is not the case of the appellant that the incident was caused during a sudden quarrel or on account of grave and sudden provocation or while exercising the right of private defence. There is no evidence to show that the present case falls under any of the exceptions to Section 300. Looking to the weapon used, the part of the body on which the injury was inflicted, the extensive nature of the injury on the head, the fact that Sonali was just 12 years old at the time of incident, all these factors when taken into account lead to conclusion that the case cannot fall under section 304 Part II of IPC. The case clearly falls under section 302 of IPC. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

¶42

Office to communicate this order to the concerned prison Authorities

¶43

and to the appellant who is in jail.

¶44

7 of 8

¶45

APEAL899_2010

¶46

At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Advocate

¶47

Ms. Nasreen Ayubi, who is on the panel of advocates of High Court Legal Services Committee and who was appointed to represent the appellant in this appeal. We found that she had meticulously prepared the matter and she has very ably argued the appeal. We quantify total legal fees to be paid to her in this appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay at Rs.2500/-.

¶48

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶49

8 of 8

Nandkumar Tukaram Dupade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkumar Tukaram Dupade 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

Mehbob Amin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sandip Haridas Mankar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sandip Haridas Mankar

Tarabai Prakash Nikhade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rukmini Kisan Narale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nandkumar Tukaram Dupade Vs the State of Maharashtra