Dismissed

Sachin Digambar Thalkari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Apr 2013APPLN/1377/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application by a life convict accused of murdering his wife, the High Court rejected the prayer. The court held that the prosecution witnesses did not discharge their burden, medical evidence showed ante-mortem injuries indicating homicides, and the applicant remained silent on the explanation for the cause of death after choosing to deny it to a witness.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; record and proceedings sent back to lower court.

Sachin Digambar Thalkari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra1377.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1377 OF 2013 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.110 OF 2013

¶7

Sachin s/o Digambar Thalkari,
Age-26 years, Occu:Agriculture,
R/o-Yusufwadgaon, Tq-Kaij,
Dist-Beed.

¶8

...APPLICANT

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Yusufwadgaon,
Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

...

¶13

 Shri.V.D. Salunke Advocate for Applicant.
 Shri.S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ

¶16

 DATE : 24TH APRIL, 2013

¶17

PER COURT :

¶18

1.Heard.

¶19

cra1377.13

¶20

¶21

2.The Applicant, a life convict, prays for

¶22

bail.

¶23

3.The prosecution case is that between the

¶24

night of 25th and 26th March, 2012, the deceased
was found dead in the matrimonial house. According
to PW-5 Ganesh Langute, Applicant reached his
house and informed him about the incident that
deceased died due to fits.

¶25

4.The post-mortem was conducted. The

¶26

medical officer found following injuries on the
dead body of deceased Bhagyashree:

¶27

" 1] Evidence of burn area seen over
palmer aspect of left hand with 1 X
0.5 cm. dimension, black colour,
oval shaped,

¶28

2] Evidence of burn area, seen over
palmer aspect of right hand, middle

¶29

cra1377.13

¶30

¶31

area, with 1 X 0.5 cm. dimension,
black colour,

¶32

3] Evidence of burn area seen over
dorsal aspect of thumb of right hand
0.5 X 0.5 cm. black colour,

¶33

4] Evidence of burn area seen on
neck posterior aspect 1 X 1 cm.
dimension, black colour,

¶34

5] Evidence of burn area seen on
left side of neck centrally place 5
cm. below left ear with 0.5 X 0.5
cm. dimension, black colour,

¶35

6] Evidence of burn area, seen on
neck right side with 0.5 X 0.5 cm.
dimension, black colour."

¶36

.The cause of death, according to the

¶37

medical officer, was "due to Cardio respiratory

¶38

arrest, due to electrocution." According to the
medical officer, the injuries suffered by the
deceased were ante-mortem and they were caused

¶39

cra1377.13

¶40

¶41

due to electric shock.

¶42

5.The prosecution examined as many as 17

¶43

witnesses, several of them turned hostile.

¶44

6.Shri. Salunke, learned counsel appearing
for the Applicant submits that the prosecution has
not discharged burden of establishing case beyond
reasonable doubt. Material prosecution witnesses
turned hostile. It was submitted that merely
because the Applicant being husband, was residing
in the same house, burden cannot be shifted to
hold that the Applicant must have committed the
crime. The medical evidence is lacking in
establishing the prosecution case. The trial Court
convicted the Applicant merely on conjectures and
surmises. There was no motive, much less any
intention to commit crime.

¶45

7.In support of his submissions, the

¶46

learned counsel for the Applicant placed reliance

¶47

cra1377.13

¶48

¶49

on the following Judgments:

¶50

(i) Shambhu Nath Mehra vs. State of
Ajmer, 1956 DGLS(Soft.) 23,

¶51

(ii) Sakharam vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 1992 DGLS(Soft.) 146,

¶52

(iii) Subramaniam vs. State of Tamil
Nadu & Anr., 2009 DGLS(Soft.) 795

¶53

(iv) Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of
U.P., dated March 9, 2011 (Supreme
Court of India).

¶54

8.The learned A.P.P. submits that

¶55

admittedly the death occurred in the matrimonial

¶56

house. The Applicant was admittedly residing with

¶57

the deceased wife. The deceased died due to

¶58

electric shocks. It was a homicidal death. The
Applicant has failed to utilize the opportunity

¶59

provided to him, under Section 313 of the Code of

¶60

Criminal Procedure, before the Court. For the

¶61

cra1377.13

¶62

¶63

reasons best known to him, the Applicant remained
to be quiet. The learned A.P.P. submits that this
is a fit case where the provisions of Section 106
of the Evidence Act would come into play. The
learned A.P.P. prays for rejection of Application.

¶64

9.We have perused the original record. We
have perused the evidence of witnesses including
medical evidence, post-mortem report. The injuries
noted by the medical officer shows that there was
evidence of burn area on palm of left hand, right
hand, thumb and neck. There was evidence of burn

¶65

area on neck posterior aspect, 1 X 1 cm.
dimension. The medical officer noticed six
injuries on the dead body of the deceased.

¶66

10.According to PW-5 Ganesh Langute, the

¶67

Applicant rushed to him and informed him that due
to fits the deceased died. The evidence on record

¶68

shows that an electric wire having 28.5 ft. length
was seen in the room where the dead body was

¶69

cra1377.13

¶70

¶71

lying. The wire was live wire and one end of the
wire was in the electrical socket. We have perused
the statement of the Applicant, recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
Applicant had chosen to remain silent. False
explanation was given by the Applicant to PW-5
Ganesh, to whom the Applicant stated that deceased
died due to fits and was found dead in the house.
All these circumstances were considered by the
trial Court for convicting and sentencing the
Applicant.

¶72

11.We have perused the Judgments, cited

¶73

supra. The issues raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the Applicant in respect of
circumstantial chain to be completed and the
burden of the prosecution, coupled with other
issues, requires deeper consideration, which is
possible at the time of scanning of the evidence.

¶74

We are convinced that there is no case made out
for releasing the Applicant on bail. The

¶75

cra1377.13

¶76

¶77

Application stands rejected. The record and
proceedings be sent back.

¶78

[A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]

¶79

asb/APR13

Sachin Digambar Thalkari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Digambar Thalkari 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

Atmaram Vishwambhar Kale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Salimkha Lalkha Pathan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mahesh Rajabhau Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Hashmi Syed Majid Ali Syed Akbar Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dilip Narsingrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Panditrao Gadadhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another