Dismissed

Jagjitkaur Nirmalsingh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Mar 2016APPA/166/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial-murder appeal, the High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction rejected an application to suspend life imprisonment and grant bail, relying on homicidal post-mortem findings and lack of explanation for the crime.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal allowed.

Jagjitkaur Nirmalsingh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

10 appa 166-16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 166 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 952 OF 2015

¶4

Jagjitkaur Nirmalsingh ..Applicant/ Appellant (Org.Acc.No.1) v/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶6

Mr. Ashok Toraskar, Advocate appointed for the Applicant. Mrs. A.S.Pai, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶7

CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶8

DATED : MARCH 16, 2016.

¶9

P.C. (Per Anuja Prabhudessai, J.).

¶10

The applicant who stands convicted for the offences punishable

¶11

under Section 302 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, in respect of each of these offences, has by this application sought suspension of the

1 of 6

salgaonkar

10 appa 166-16.doc

substantive sentence of imprisonment and enlargement on bail pending the decision of appeal.

¶16

Shri Toraskar, the learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that death of Paramjitsingh was not homicidal. He has submitted that said Paramjitsingh was suffering from migrane and was unwell on the date of the incident. The learned Counsel has further submitted that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the applicant in the aforesaid crime.

¶17

Mrs. Pai, the learned APP has submitted that the post mortem report indicates that the death of Paramjitsingh was homicidal. She has submitted that the applicant, who is the sister of Paramjitsingh was residing alongwith the deceased in his flat at 1001, Durvankur Building, DSK Ranwara Society, Bavdhan, Pune. She has submitted that the deceased was last seen in the company of applicant and that she has not explained as to how he had sustained the injuries noted in the postmortem report. The learned APP has urged that the circumstances established by the prosecution prove the guilt of the

2 of 6

salgaonkar

10 appa 166-16.doc

applicant beyond reasonable doubt.

¶22

We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the State and examined the evidence on record.

¶23

The postmortem report reveals that deceased Paramjitsingh had sustained following external injuries:

¶24

i) Contused abrasion present over left ala of nose of size 1cm x 1cm. Red in colour.

¶25

ii) Four contused abrasionpresent over left cheek each of size .5cm x .5cm. Red in colour.

¶26

iii) Nine contused abrasions present over left entero lateral aspect of neck in an area of 6 cm x 5 cm of size varying from .5 cm to 2 cm x .5 cm. Red in colour

¶27

iv) Seven contused abrasions present over right enterolateral aspect of neck in an area of 6 cm x 5 cm of size varying from .5 cm x .5cm to 1cm x 1 cm red in colour.

¶28

v) Therapeutic injection marks present over dorsums of both wrists.

¶29

The post mortem report reveals that the deceased had suffered

¶30

the following internal injures:

3 of 6

salgaonkar

10 appa 166-16.doc

a) Haematoma present over right side of strap muscles of neck of size 5 cm x 2 cm. bluish red in colour.

¶35

b) Haetoma present over left side of strap muscles of neck of size 3cm x 2 cm red in colour.

¶36

c) Haetoma present over base of tongue of size 2 cm x 2 cm red in colour.

¶37

d) Greater cornu (horn) of hyoid bone fractured on left side with extravasation of blood present in the surrounding tissues.

¶38

e) Superior cornu of thyroid cartilage fractured on left side.

¶39

The doctor has opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to throttling. The postmortem report therefore reveals that the death of Paramjitsingh was not natural but was homicidal.

¶40

It is not in dispute that the applicant herein is the sister of

¶41

deceased Paramjitsingh and that she was residing alongwith the deceased in flat No.1001, Durvankur Bldg., DSK Rangwara Society, Bavdhan, Pune. The evidence of PW6 Vijay, PW14 Dr. Chavan and PW15 Manjrekar reveals that during the intervening night of 24^th and 25^th January, 2013 at about 12 a.m. the applicant herein had

¶42

taken Paramjitsingh to Om Hospital with history of vomitting. The

4 of 6

salgaonkar

10 appa 166-16.doc

doctors had advised to admit Paramjitsingh for observation. However, the applicant informed the doctor that Paramjitsingh was not willing to get himself admitted and got him discharged after giving him first aid. Thereafter the applicant along with the other co-accused took the deceased to his flat.

¶47

The evidence reveals that the applicant had hired a taxi on 25.1.2013 at about 5.55 a.m. She had withdrawn money from ATM IDBI bank and given some money to the co-accused and told the driver to drop them to the railway station. Thereafter, at about 6 a.m. she had told her sister (PW4) that Paramjitsingh was not breathing. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

¶48

The above circumstances prima facie reveal that the applicant was in the company of the deceased during the intervening night of 24^th and 25^th January, 2013. Said Paramjitsingh was murdered in the flat wherein they were residing. The applicant had not explained the facts which were within her special knowledge.

5 of 6

salgaonkar

10 appa 166-16.doc

In the light of such evidence we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and direct enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶53

. Under the circumstances, the application is dismissed.

¶54

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶55

(SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶56

6 of 6

¶57

salgaonkar

Jagjitkaur Nirmalsingh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjitkaur Nirmalsingh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vilas Dagdu Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krushna Shivram Shingda Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arun Shankar Ramlingam Naidu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayur Mulji Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lingappa Kallappa Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Suresh Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra