Single judge rejected bail application of father and son accused of murdering a woman. Court found motive, serious head injuries, and corroboration of assault by multiple witnesses, though weapon count differed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 : 23.BA-200-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.200 OF 2021
1. Bapaji Dhakal Khanjode, &
2. Santosh Bapaji Khanjode.... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
Smt. Vrishali R. Raje, Advocate for the Applicants.
Smt. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:17th MARCH, 2021
P.C. :
1.The Applicants are seeking their release on bail in
connection with C.R.No.81/2020 registered at Vikramgad
police station, District-Palghar dated 1.7.2020 under Sections
302, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.The prosecution case is that the Applicants are
father and son. Applicant No.1’s daughter, i.e. Applicant
No.2’s sister, was married to one Prakash Nakhare. Prakash
Nakhare was having illicit relations with one Sakku Baraf.
The Applicants,therefore, were angry with Sakku and they
1 of 6
Deshmane(PS)
: 2 : 23.BA-200-21.odt
assaulted her on 30.6.2020 in the morning. Applicant No.1
assaulted her with a iron crowbar and Applicant No.2 pushed
her violently against a pole thereby causing her death. On
this basis, the Applicants were arrested on 1.7.2020 and since
then they are in custody. The investigation is over and the
charge-sheet is filed.
3.Heard Smt. Vrishali R. Raje, learned Counsel for
the Applicants and Smt. A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the
State.
4.The FIR is lodged by son of the deceased, who had
seen the incident. He has stated that on 28.6.2020, there was
a quarrel between the deceased and Phulwanti i.e. Prakash’s
wife. The villagers were to look into the matter to find a
solution. However, the Applicants did not cooperate and
nothing further happened. On 30.6.2020, at about 7:00 a.m.,
the deceased was coming back to her house. She was stopped
by the Applicants. She was abused. Applicant No.1 gave
blows with iron scrowbar and Applicant No.2 threw her on
the ground. The others came for help and the Applicants
2 of 6
: 3 : 23.BA-200-21.odt
went away. The injured Sakku was removed to Primary
Health Center but while undergoing treatment she succumbed
to her injuries. On this basis, the FIR was lodged.
5. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that
the narration given by the eye witnesses show that the
incident could not have taken place in the manner in which
they have narrated it. The postmortem notes do not support
their story. She submitted that if a person is assaulted on
head with the heavy iron crowbar, then there would be at
least a skull fracture. There is no such injury noticed on the
dead body. She submitted that the eye witnesses had actually
not seen the incident. The Applicants are arrested only
because of the previous dispute between Phulwanti and the
deceased.
6.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
Applicant No.1 is more than 60 years of age and, therefore,
leniency should be shown to him.
7. Learned A.P.P. opposed this application. Learned
3 of 6
: 4 : 23.BA-200-21.odt
A.P.P. relied on the statements of the eye witnesses i.e. the first
informant as well as his sister Neelam Baraf. She submitted
that a deadly weapon was used and the deceased was brutally
assaulted. Therefore, the Applicants do not deserve any
leniency.
8.I have considered these submissions and with
their assistance I have perused the charge-sheet. Besides
these two eye witnesses, there are others who have described
this incident. They are Baban Baraf and Dilip Khanjode. They
have stated about the incident. They had seen the incident.
Baban had stated that he had seen Applicant No.1 assaulting
her with hands on her head and neck; whereas Dilip has
stated that both the Applicants were assaulting her.
Significantly, both of them have not stated that either of the
Applicants was carrying a iron crowbar. Therefore, except for
reference to the weapon, these eye witnesses have supported
the theory of assault mounted by the present Applicants on
the deceased.
9.The postmortem notes show that the deceased had
4 of 6
: 5 : 23.BA-200-21.odt
suffered head injury in the nature of contusion and abrasions
at right parietal region of the size 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm; and
at left knee joint of the size 2 cm x 2 cm and 1 cm x 1 cm.
There was underscalp haematoma over right frontal, right
temporal and right parietal region. There was subdural
haematoma over right parietal, temporal and right frontal
region. Therefore, the head injury was quite serious. The
cause of death mentioned was “death due to cardio-
respiratory arrest due to intracranial bleed, due to head
injury”.
10.Considering the statements of eye witnesses and
the injuries suffered by the deceased, it is apparent that the
Applicants are responsible for causing these injuries which
were endangering the life of the deceased. Use of iron
crowbar is not supported by other eye witnesses. However, at
this stage, their consistent case is in respect of assault
committed by both the Applicants on the deceased causing
head injury. The injury is serious.
11.There is motive for the Applicants for commission
5 of 6
: 6 : 23.BA-200-21.odt
of this offence. It has not occurred at the spur of moment.
12.At this stage, there is nothing to show that the
offence may fall in any of the exceptions given under Section
299 of IPC making it an offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. However, this will have to be decided
during trial.
13.The observations made in this order are restricted
to passing of the present order. Learned trial Judge shall
decide the trial on the basis of evidence led before him,
without being influenced by the observations made in this
order.
14.In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the Applicant. Hence, the Application is rejected.
Digitally signed by PradeepkumarP. Deshmane PradeepkumarP. DeshmaneDate: 2021.03.20 14:30:26 +0530
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused facing charges of murder in connection with a dispute with the deceased's family.
Whether the nature of injuries and the witnesses support the prosecution case of murder requiring denial of bail.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Bapaji Dhakal Khanjode
Santosh Bapaji Khanjode
The State of Maharashtra
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court