Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Madhukar Panhalkar and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2018APEAL/292/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court analyzed medical evidence and prosecution testimony regarding the death of a married woman allegedly due to electrocution. The Court held that reasonable doubt existed as suicide was a plausible alternative and the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the accused committed the crime.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents by the Trial Court was affirmed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramesh Madhukar Panhalkar and 2… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2007

¶5

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer Police Station Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. ....Appellant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramesh Madhukar Panhalkar, Age 25 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Pandhari Shivar, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.

¶8

Padminbai @ Rukhmabai w/o. Madhukar Panhalkar, Age 42 years, Occu. Household & Agriculture, R/o. Pandhari Shivar, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.

¶9

Madhukar s/o. Maruti Panhalkar, Age 45 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Pandhari Shivar, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents.

¶10

Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, APP for appellant/State.

¶11

Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. DATED : APRIL 25, 2018.

¶13

JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

¶14

The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 60/2006, which was pending in the Court of learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge,

¶15

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶16

¶17

Beed. The respondents are acquitted by the Trial Court of the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 498-A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). Both the sides are heard.

¶18

In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows :-

¶19

Deceased Urmila was daughter of first informant Haribhau. Haribhau is resident of village Pandhari, Tahsil Ashti, District Beed. Urmila was given in marriage to accused No. 1 Ramesh, who also hails from village Pandhari, about one year prior to the date of incident. In the house of accused No. 1, he was living with parents of accused No. 1, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3.

¶20

It is the case of prosecution that after four months of the marriage, the deceased started disclosing that there was illtreatment to her from all the accused as they wanted her to bring Rs.one lakh from her parents. She disclosed that accused were harassing her mentally and physically and on occasions, they were giving shocks of electricity to her. After learning about this illtreatment, Haribhau had brought the deceased to his house and she had stayed in his house for few days. Then meeting was arranged in which the accused persons and others relatives were called. The parents of the

¶21

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007 3

¶22

deceased expressed that they were not in a position to give Rs. one lakh and they somehow convinced the accused persons to behave well and they sent Urmila back to the matrimonial house. After that there was no illtreatment to the deceased for about four and half months.

¶23

It is the case of prosecution that accused again started giving illtreatment to the deceased and they again started asking her to bring Rs. one lakh from her parents. Due to the harassment of the accused, the deceased went to Karanji where her maternal uncle lived and she stayed there. The maternal uncle then took the deceased to the house of her parents and she started living with her parents. She lived with her parents for about four and half months. Then again an attempt was made to convince the accused and about three weeks prior to the date of incident, the deceased was sent to the matrimonial house.

¶24

About three days prior to finding of the dead body, a message was given by the father-in-law of the deceased, accused No. 3 that the deceased was missing. Search was made, but the deceased was not traced. The parents of deceased were working as labour for cutting sugarcane and after learning about missing of the deceased, they rushed to Pandhari on 9.3.2006. On 9.3.2006 at

¶25

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶26

¶27

about 6.00 p.m. Dhondi Bapu Wandhari, person from village Pandhari informed that the dead body of deceased was hanging at a tree situated in his field.

¶28

Initially A.D. report was given by father of deceased and during inquiry of A.D. report, the dead body was referred for P.M. examination after preparing inquest. Spot panchanama was prepared. The doctor, who conducted the P.M. examination gave opinion that the death had taken place due to electrocution. Then on 10.3.2006 Haribhau gave report against all the three accused that they had murdered the deceased by electrocution and they had hanged the dead body on the tree situated in the filed of Dhondi Bapu Wandhari. The crime at C.R. No. 31/2006 came to be registered on the basis of this report in Ashti Police Station.

¶29

During investigation, police arrested all the accused. Accused No. 1, husband produced a wire which was allegedly used for electrocution. Statements of relatives of deceased on parents' side and others were recorded and the chargesheet was filed for aforesaid offences. When the charge was framed, accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses to prove the offences. All the accused took the defence of total denial. The Trial Court has given benefit of doubt to the accused by holding that

¶30

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶31

¶32

chain of circumstances is not completed by the evidence given by the prosecution.

¶33

The prosecution has relied on the evidence of doctor only to prove that it is the case of homicide. The prosecution has given evidence on motive which is in the form of so called disclosures made by the deceased on the demand of Rs. one lakh made by the accused. The evidence is given that at the relevant time, the deceased was cohabiting with accused No. 1 in his house and accused No. 1 was living with his parents, accused Nos. 2 and 3.

¶34

For proving that it is homicide, prosecution has examined Dr. Neeta (PW 6). The P.M. was conducted on 10.3.2006 between 9.30 a.m. and 10.45 a.m. when the dead body was first seen in the field of aforesaid Dhondi on 9.3.2011 in the evening. The P.M. report at Exh. 45 is duly proved in the evidence of Dr. Neeta. The evidence and the P.M. report show that rigor mortis was absent and post mortem lividity and also decomposition was absent. The evidence is given by the doctor that her opinion was sought on exact time of death and the cause of death. This opinion was given in Exh. 46. Evidence is given that the death had taken place 24 to 36 hours prior to the P.M. examination. In P.M. report, probable cause of death given is as under :-

¶35

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶36

¶37

"(i) Cardio respiratory arrest,

¶38

(ii) pulmonary oedema,

¶39

(iii) electric shock."

¶40

In Exh. 46 opinion is given that probable cause of death was shock due to electricity.

¶41

The Trial Court has held that prosecution failed to prove that Urmila died homicide death. The Trial Court has considered the aforesaid medical evidence and the injuries mentioned in column No. 17 of P.M. report, which are as under :-

¶42

"Ligature mark seen in upper part of neck extended from (Lt) side of angle of mandible to (Rt) side of sternomastoid posterior border, size 20 cm x 1/2 cm. Hyoid bone seen.

¶43

(i) Laceration to (Rt) elbow past side 1½ cm x 1 cm.

¶44

(ii) Abrasion to swi of tibia (Lf) side 2 x 1½ cm.

¶45

(iii) Contusion behind (Rt) ear 1 x 1 cm. Entry wound - both palms

¶46

Exit wound (Lt) great toe 2 x 2 cm."

¶47

The Trial Court has observed that at the entry and exist point, the skin had not become brown or black showing that there were burns. The other reasons mentioned by the Trial Court at para No. 24 are as under :-

¶48

"24. It is to be noted that in electrical deaths, Exit

¶49

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶50

¶51

marks are variable in appearance. Further they are often seen as splits in the skin at points where the skin has been raised into ridges by the passage of current; splitting of these ridges may be continuous or interrupted. In Post Mortem Notes there is reference about exist wound on left great toe of deceased. However, there is no any reference in Post Mortem Notes that skin on left great toe was splitting. Further, in electrical deaths, exist marks may cause damage to the tissues. But, there is no such reference in respect of such exist wound."

¶52

More reasons are given at para Nos. 26 and 27 and they are as under :-

¶53

"26. It is important to note that internal post Mortem appearances in electrical deaths are usually those of asphyxia. The brain, meninges and parenchymatous organs are congested. Further there may be bone necrosis and zigzag microfractures. Further Focal petechial haemorrhages are found in the brain and spinal cord. On going through column No. 19 of Post Mortem examination, it is crystal clear that deceased did not sustain any injuries to scalp and there was no any fracture to skull. Further, in the Post Mortem Notes, there is no reference about bone necrosis and zigzag miscrofractures. There is no reference about the congestion of parenchymatous organs. It is pertinent to note that in electrical deaths, death probably occurs from paralysis of medullary

¶54

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶55

¶56

(respiratory) centres, from ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest without fibrillation. However, neither in the Post Mortem Notes nor in the written opinion given by P.W. 6, there is such reference. It is mentioned that cause of death is pulmonary oedema. However, there is no explanation given by P.W. 6 as to how deceased sustained swelling to her lungs.

¶57

It is to be noted that P.W. 6 in her cross examination admitted in clear words that in case of electrical deaths, eyes are congested, face is calm (pale) and pupils are dilated. She also admitted that in electrical deaths, heart tents to stop in diastole and in generally dilated on the right side. She further admitted that in her Post Mortem examination, there is no any reference about calm face, contested eyes, dilated pupils and heart tends in diastole on the right side. It is to be noted that P.W. 6 admitted in her cross-examination that if electric current is given till death, body will be in charred condition and just like coal and Post Mortem examination would not possible. According to her, in electrical deaths, tissues appears like punctured would and she did not notice any splitting injury on the left great toe of deceased. It is to be noted that P.W. 6 has kept column No. 18 of the P.M. Notes as blank without mentioning as to whether injuries mentioned in column No. 17 are ante mortem or not ?"

¶58

¶59

The Trial Court has considered other injuries which were

¶60

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶61

¶62

found on neck which were ligature mark and fracture of hyold bone. The doctor has not specifically described in P.M. report as to whether the ligature mark was ante-mortom or post-mortem and then circumstance is discussed by the Trial Court at para No. 29 which is as under :-

¶63

"29. I have gone through Post Mortem Notes carefully and cautiously. In column No. 17, there is reference pertaining to ligature mark in the upper part of neck extended from left side of angle of mandible to right side of sternomastoid posterior border of size 20 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. There is also reference about fracture to hyoid bone. It is well settled that in the cases of hanging (asphyxial deaths) ligature mark on the neck is the most important and specific sign of death. Further, in the case of hanging, there is every possibility of fracture of hyoid bone. While conducting Post Mortem examination P.W. 6 and Dr. Wanve noticed ligature mark in upper part of neck extended from left side of angle of mandible to right side of sternomastoid posterior border. However, Medical Officers have not expressed any opinion about injury No. 1 as to whether same is ante-mortem or postmortem ?"

¶64

The learned APP placed reliance on opinion given in one book on expert evidence and he submitted that if the symptoms which can be found in case of hanging are compared with the

¶65

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶66

¶67

symptoms which were found in the present case, it is not possible to believe that it is a case of hanging. The main symptom of hanging is presence of saliva and it runs out of mouth and other symptoms are swelling and protrusion of tongue, though it is less marked in hanging. It needs to be kept in mind that the P.M. was conducted after more than 24 hours of the death as per the opinion given by

¶68

the doctor. Due to that, not much can be made out due to circumstances like absence of saliva, protrusion of tongue may not be there in all cases of hanging and so, only due to the circumstances, the possibility of hanging cannot be ruled out. As in P.M. report there was no specific mention about the injuries to show that they were ante-mortom or post-mortem and as there are aforesaid circumstances which are also considered by the Trial Court, this Court holds that in the present matter, the possibility of death due to hanging is not ruled out and that creates another possibility, the possibility of suicide.

¶69

The evidence on the record shows that the distance between the residential place of the accused and the place where the dead body was hanging is 4-5 k.m. The evidence on the record shows that there are houses in the vicinity of the house of accused. Even statements of many witnesses, who are neighbours of accused were recorded by police. The evidence is not given by prosecution to

¶70

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶71

¶72

show that even on 6th or 5th of that month anybody had seen Urmila cohabiting with accused No. 1. It was necessary for the prosecution to establish this circumstance as the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and as the prosecution is admitting that on 6th father in law of the deceased who is accused No. 3 was searching for the deceased and he had informed that the deceased was missing since 6th of that month. Thus, important link is missing in the present matter for proving the homicide. Further, when distance between the house of accused and the place where the dead body was hanging is 4-5 k.m., in ordinary course, somebody would have noticed some persons taking the dead body away from the house of the accused, but that did not happen. If the opinion of the doctor on time of death is kept in mind, it can be said that there is possibility that death took place in the day time on 9th itself. This circumstance again strengthens possibility of suicide.

¶73

All the prosecution witnesses have admitted that for most of the time, the deceased was living with her parents and she lived with accused No. 1 hardly for four to six months. The evidence on the record shows that the deceased was virtually sent to the house of accused for cohabitation on last occasion as per the case of prosecution. Whether she wanted to return the matrimonial house or not is a question, which cannot be answered in favour of prosecution

¶74

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶75

¶76

due to aforesaid circumstances. That probability is also there against the prosecution.

¶77

The evidence of Haribhau (PW 3), father of deceased and Sudhakar (PW 4), who is also relative of deceased on parents' side is mainly on so called illtreatment to Urmila by the accused persons. Both of them have given evidence that after four months of marriage, the accused had started asking the deceased to bring Rs. one lakh as they wanted to purchase Jersey cow and as they wanted to make construction of new house. They have given evidence that the deceased used to disclose that accused used to abuse her, they used to beat her, they were starving her and on occasions, they were giving her shocks of electricity. The evidence is given by Haribhau that after learning about the illtreatment, he brought the deceased to his house and on that occasion, she had stayed with him for about 15 days. He has given evidence that he had then called meeting of relatives in which accused were called and then accused had taken the deceased to matrimonial house and she had cohabited with accused No. 1 for four and half months. He has given evidence that after that period due to illtreatment the deceased went to the house of her maternal uncle. Maternal uncle then reached her

¶78

to the house of parents and she stayed there for about four and half months and after that when parents were not present in the village,

¶79

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶80

¶81

she was reached to the house of accused. This evidence does not

¶82

show that accused were insisting for Rs. one lakh as per the case of prosecution. If the evidence is accepted as it is, it can be said that accused had accepted the deceased every time when she had returned to the matrimonial house. This circumstance creates doubt about the case of prosecution that the accused were making demand of money and due to that, there was illtreatment to the deceased. It is suggested to this witness that even on the date of incident, the deceased was living with her parents. Though this suggestion is denied, there is no independent evidence with the prosecution to show that at the relevant time, the deceased was living with the accused persons in their house as the neighbours of the accused are not examined by the prosecution. The evidence in cross examination given by the father of deceased shows that accused No. 1 is in milk business and he has one motorcycle also which is used for supplying milk by him. The father has admitted that he was required to do labour work like cutting sugarcane for sugar factory. It shows that his financial condition was not that sound. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he used to convince his daughter to return to her matrimonial house by saying that such quarrels do take place in the matrimonial house. All these circumstances create a probability that the deceased was not inclined to return to matrimonial house, though the accused persons were ready to accept her back in the

¶83

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶84

¶85

matrimonial house. Similar is the evidence given by Sudhakar (PW 4), who is brother in law of Haribhau. He is resident of Karanji. There is also similar evidence of Ashru (PW 5), who is working as Police Head Constable and who is relative of the parents of the deceased.

¶86

At Exh. 37, there is A.D. report given by Haribhau and it shows that when he saw the dead body on 9.3.2006 in the field of Dhondi Wandhari, he gave A.D. report and he informed to the police that the deceased had probably committed suicide. Thus, when he immediately approached police, he expressed suspicion that it was the case of suicide and in A.D. report he had not made any allegations against accused that they were responsible for the suicide of the deceased. This circumstance cannot be ignored in a case like present one. This document further shows that they knew that the deceased was missing for about three days and he had not informed that at the relevant time, she was cohabiting with accused No. 1.

¶87

The aforesaid evidence has created many probabilities which are in favour of the accused. In view of these probabilities, this Court holds that the Trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused persons of the aforesaid offences. It is not

¶88

Cri. Appeal No. 292/2007

¶89

¶90

possible to interfere in the decision given by the Trial Court. In the

¶91

result, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶92

[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

¶93

ssc/

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Madhukar Panhalkar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Madhukar Panhalkar and 2 Ors.

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

Sushama Eknath Mahajan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Shikshan Prsarak Mandal Lakh and Anr. through Secretary Vs Laxman Maroti Turukmane and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Sudhakar Sangram Kamble and Anr.

Ramrao Aantrao Deokar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Mah and Others Vs Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj and Others

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj and Anr.