SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinod Ramesh Thorave vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 October, 2018

Sherla V.

apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.52 OF 2013

Vinod Ramesh Thorve … Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

Mr.M.K. Kocharekar i/b Sandip Babar for the Appellant

Ms.M.H. Mhatre, APP, for the Respondent – State

CORAM: Mr.S.S. SHINDE
Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE: OCTOBER 30, 2018

JUDGMENT (PER MRS.BHATKAR, J.):

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused, who is a

convict in Sessions Case No.165 of 2009 for the offences of

murder and cruelty. By the impugned judgment and order dated

16.8.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Pune, the appellant was sentenced under section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and so also under

section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to suffer R.I. for 3 years

with fine.

Page 1 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::

apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

2. Roopali, the wife of the appellant/accused No.1, died on

7.11.2008. The appellant is held guilty for murder of his wife

Roopali who was killed on 7.11.2008.

3. One Gorakhnath Narayan Gangawane, the father of Roopali,

is the informant. It is his case that his daughter Roopali got

married with the appellant/accused approximately in the year

2006. However, the appellant/accused and his mother Shobha

Ramesh Thorve both started demanding money from Roopali.

Roopali on her visit to maiden home had told about the

harassment at the hands of the appellant/accused. He gave

Rs.20,000/- to the appellant and also requested that they should

not harass his daughter. However, thereafter, Roopali used to

complain that her mother in law abused and beat her. Her

harassment had never stopped. The demand for money by the

appellant and his mother continued thereafter. The appellant

stopped working and so, the appellant alongwith two daughters,

Roopali and his mother started residing in their village. The

appellant and his mother both demanded Rs.1 lakh for

constructing house which could not be fulfilled by PW1

Gorakhnath. On 30.10.2008, he was informed by his sister, PW5

Page 2 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

Mangala Nagare, that she witnessed the appellant and his mother

assaulting Roopali with kicks and fist blows out of the house.

Then, on 6.11.2008, Gorakhnath received a message that his

daughter Roopali was serious and so they should come to Pune.

So, he went to Pune and found that she was admitted in Sassoon

hospital and she had expired. He saw the dead body of Roopali

and noticed injuries of beating and abrasions all over her body.

So, the informant asked what happened and at that time, the

appellant told that out of family dispute, he killed Roopali. The FIR

(exh. 60) was registered at C.R. No.160 of 2008 under section

302, 498 r/w section 34 of the IPC, against the appellant and his

mother. Inquest Panchanama was conducted by the Investigating

Officer i.e., PW6 Narayan Bajirao Nanavare. Then, the death

certificate (exh. 44) was collected, after post-mortem by the

Investigating Officer (PW6). Spot panchanama was prepared on

the same day, i.e., exh. 62. Then, the clothes of the Respondent

were also seized under Panchanama (exh. 63). The clothes of the

accused were seized under Panchanama (exh. 64). He recorded

the statements of the witnesses and thereafter sent the articles to

C.A. and after receiving C.A. report, which are exhibits 66 and 68,

he prepared the chargesheet and filed it before the Court. The

Page 3 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant

and his mother and pleaded not guilty and adopted defence of

denial.

4. The learned Judge after considering the evidence of

prosecution and the defence of the appellant, convicted the

appellant and his mother under the offence of cruelty under section

498A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code.

5. Mr.Kocharekar, the learned Counsel, submitted that the

evidence in this case is short and insufficient to hold that the

applicant/accused is guilty for the offence of murder of his wife.

There is no eye witness to the incident. No witness has deposed

stating direct involvement of the applicant/accused in the

commission of offence. The learned Judge should have

appreciated the defence that the deceased could have gone to

answer nature’s call in the early morning in the hilly area and in

darkness might have succumbed to the injuries due to accidental

fall which resulted into death. There is no evidence disclosing the

presence of the appellant on the spot at the time of the incident.

Page 4 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::

apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased had gone to

drink liquor. The chain of circumstances involving the

applicant/accused is not complete. He further submitted that the

evidence of the father of the deceased (PW1) ought not to have

been accepted especially on the point of extra-judicial confession

because he is an interested witness. He pointed out in the cross-

examination that the Doctor has admitted that if a person falls from

hill and comes in contact with stones while tumbling down, he

injury No.9 to 10 and the internal injury is shown in postmortem

report are possible due to impact of stones. This ought to have

been accepted by the trial Court. The motive relied on by the

prosecution is not proved. If the deceased was harassed and

abused physically, she did not lodge a single complaint against the

applicant/accused and his mother. So, this charge of cruelty

against the applicant/accused are baseless without any material

proof, the oral evidence of the interested witnesses on the point of

demand of money for house should have been discarded. There is

no evidence of last seen together against the applicant/accused.

Thus, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge of

conviction on 18.8.2011 is to be set aside.

Page 5 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::

apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

6. Learned Prosecutor while supporting the judgment of the trial

Court has relied on the evidence of all witnesses especially the

father PW1 Gorakhnath Gangawane and for the purpose of

corroboration of evidence of PW5 Mangala Nagare, was pointed

out and read over. The learned Prosecutor has submitted that

both the witnesses have stated that the deceased Roopali was

tortured by her mother in law and the husband. There was

continuous demand of money. She was ill-treated when the

demand was not fulfilled by the father PW1. He further submitted

that on 6.11.2008, the father, who is a resident of Wanjarwadi,

Taluka Karjat, District Raigad, received a message that his

daughter Roopali was serious and was admitted Sassoon hospital

and, therefore, he immediately rushed to Sassoon hospital, Pune.

On the way, he came to know that his daughter Roopali had

expired. The learned Prosecutor submitted that the accused Vinod

has made extra-judicial confession that he killed Roopali. The

learned Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution also further

relied on the evidence of Mangala who had deposed that on

30.10.2008, she has witnessed the applicant/accused and his

mother assaulting Roopali and they drover her out. He further

pointed out that the evidence of PW1 and PW5 is corroborated

Page 6 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

with the evidence of Dr.Ajay Tawre PW4, who has conducted the

postmortem and has opined that the death was due to asphyxia

due to throttling with head injury. The learned Prosecutor has

submitted that the prosecution has proved that the

applicant/accused has committed murder of the deceased on the

basis of circumstantial evidence which is sufficient to hold him

guilty. Hence, the appeal be dismissed.

7. It is a short case of six witnesses. The prosecution has

examined PW1 Gorakhnath Gangawane, PW2 Sanjay

Gangawane, PW3 Avinash and PW5 Mangala Nagare on the

point of cruelty and motive. They are the near relatives of the

deceased Roopali. PW1 Gorakhnath has stated that he is the

father of Roopali, Sanjay was her uncle and Mangala was the

paternal aunt of Roopali. They have stated that prior to 2½ years

i.e., 6.11.2018, Roopali got married to the accused and started

residing with the accused at Thane. Initially for six months, she

stayed happily. However, thereafter, the mother in law and the

appellant/accused husband started harassing her. They ill-treated

her; demanded money of Rs.30,000/- for giving deposit for the

house on rent. The appellant/accused earlier was having business

Page 7 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

of two auto-rickshaws and running vegetable shop, however, he

suffered loss in the business and started ill treating the deceased.

Thereafter, they demanded Rs.30,000/-. So, the father has

deposed that he borrowed Rs.20,000/-from his brother and gave

Rs.30,000/- to Roopali. However,the demand increased when the

accused sold his rickshaws and shifted from Thane to village

Disali. The accused started assaulting Roopali and demanded

Rs.1 lakh from Roopali for constructing new house at their native

place. He has stated that on 30.10.2008, his eldest sister Mangala

Nagare i.e., PW5, contacted him on phone and told that she had

been to Disali for some rituals and at that time, she witnessed that

the appellant/accused had dragged Roopali out of the house and

assaulted her with fists and kick blows. PW2 Sanjay Gangawne

has stated that he has contributed to raise a fund of Rs.20,000/- to

give it to the accused and he was aware that the accused

continued to beat Roopali. PW5 Mangala in her evidence has

deposed that on 30.10.2008, she had to village Disali for some

rituals. The house of her relatives and the house of the accused

are opposite to each other and at that time, she saw the accused

and his mother were driving out Roopali out of the house and were

beating her. She intervened and thereafter, she

Page 8 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

phoned her brother and informed him about the incident. Thus,

these witnesses corroborate each other on the point of demand

and cruelty and the previous incident of 30.10.2008. The

contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused that all

the three are interested witnesses and therefore, their evidence is

doubtful, cannot be accepted. Generally, matrimonial disputes like

demand or assault is not discussed by a woman in public but the

woman is bound to tell her grief and about the ill-treatment to her

father or mother or near relatives. Thus, the evidence of the

relatives cannot be discarded in such cases on the ground that

they are interested witnesses.

8. On the point of murder, there is no eye witness. However,

PW1 Gorakhnath has stated that on 6.11.2008, Sanjay

Gangawane i.e., PW2, the uncle of accused, Vinod, contacted him

at night between 11pm and 1.30pm and informed that his daughter

Roopali was serious and asked him to come immediately to Pune.

So, PW1 Gorakhnath went to PW2 Sanjay, his brother, and

alongwith their wives and relatives went to Pune and on the way,

he was informed that Roopali was admitted in Sassoon hospital

and has expired there. When he went to the hospital, he saw the

Page 9 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

dead body of Roopali and on her neck, back, stomach, there were

injuries of beating and abrasions. His nephew Avinash Gangavane

(PW3) was with him. He asked the appellant/accused Vinod as to

what happened and at that time, the appellant told that out of

family disputes, he killed Roopali. Then, in the hospital itself, at

6.30 am, he lodged a complaint on 7.11.2008. The FIR is marked

exhibit 23 dated 7.11.2008. PW2 Sanjay has corroborated the

evidence of PW1 on the point of getting telephonic information

about the death of Roopali. PW2 has deposed that PW3 Avinash

asked Vinod as to what happened and at that time, he was told

that he was bickering over the dinner and due to that, he killed

Roopali by pressing her neck.

9. The evidence of PW3 Avinash discloses that on 6.11.2018 at

10pm, he received phone call from Sanjay, the uncle of Vinod that

Roopali was serious and so, he asked him to come to Sahyadri

hospital and so, he alongwith his wife went to Sahyadri hospital. At

that time, the accused Vinod, Sanjay and Bharti brought Roopali to

Sahyadri in a jeep. On examination in the hospital, the Doctor told

that Roopali was dead and therefore, he asked him to take her to

Sassoon hospital. At that time, PW3 Avinash asked Vinod as to

Page 10 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

what happened and the accused answered that at about 4pm,

there was a quarrel on account of dinner and, therefore, he

assaulted Roopali. They all went to Sassoon hospital. He has

stated in his evidence that he had seen the dead body of Roopali

and he noticed several signs of beating on her body. PW5

Mangala has stated that on 6.11.2008, she received information

from her brother at 11pm that Roopali had died in Sassoon

hospital and she went to Sassoon hospital. She saw the dead

body of Roopali and noticed many injury marks on her entire body

– broadly on the neck, back, stomach, face. The accused was

present and she asked him as to why he did so. The accused at

that time, answered that on the reason of dinner, there was quarrel

and, therefore, he has assaulted Roopali.

10. The learned Defence Counsel has relied on the admission

given by PW1 Gorakhnath in para 11 of his evidence. In the

cross-examination, PW1 gave admission that neither in his

presence Avinash asked the accused Vinod as to what happened

nor the accused Vinod told him in his presence that he killed

(“maarle” in Marathi) Roopali due to domestic dispute.

11. While criticising this admission, the FIR which is the first

Page 11 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

document prepared immediately after the incident by PW1, is to be

seen. In the FIR, PW1 Gorakhnath has given all the details about

the ill-treatment given by the appellant and the mother in law. He

has stated that on 6.11.2008, he received a message from PW2

Sanjay that Roopali was serious and so, he started alongwith his

brother and relatives to Pune. When he saw the dead body of

Roopali, he found the injuries on her neck, stomach and all over

the body. At that time, his nephew PW3 Avinash told him that he

had asked the accused what happened and at the time, he

answered that there was bickering on account of dinner and

therefore, he killed her. Thus, the prosecution is successful in

bringing on record that the accused did not give extra-judicial

confession of killing Roopali in the presence of PW1 or PW2, but

he confessed before Avinash. No weightage would have been

given to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on the point of extra-

judicial confession of the accused otherwise if Avinash would not

have been examined and would not have confirmed the fact of

extra-judicial confession given by the appellant Vinod to him. In

the absence of deposition of Avinash on this point, the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 about extra-judicial confession would have been

treated hearsay. However, the prosecution has diligently examined

Page 12 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

Avinash, who has stated that he asked Vinod at Sahyadri hospital

as he saw the dead body of Roopali as to what happened and at

that time, the appellant told him that there was a quarrel earlier on

the night and so, he assaulted her. Similarly, PW5 Mangala has

independently deposed that when she saw injury marks on the

entire body of Roopali. She asked the accused Vinod as to why he

did so. At that time, he told her samething that on account of

quarrel on dinner, he assaulted Roopali. The conviction cannot be

based solely on the extra-judicial confession. However, these

witnesses corroborate each other on the point of motive and

previous conduct of the accused. Similarly, all these witnesses

have noticed many injury marks on the body of Roopali. At this

stage, we would like to discuss the evidence of PW4 Medical

Officer, Dr.Ajay Aniruddha Tavare, who is an independent witness.

PW4 Dr.Ajay Tavare alongwith Dr.Vetal conducted the postmortem

on 7.11.2008 between 10am to 11am. He noticed 18 injuries on

her body. They were all in the nature of crescentic abrasions and

lacerations. The abrasions were found on her mouth, neck, chest,

elbow, forearms, scapular region, shoulder, buttocks, knee and he

noted that all injuries were fresh and antemortem. On internal

examination, he found there was haematoma in the scalp and

Page 13 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

haemorhages seen over brain matter. Also, neck haematoma in

the strap muscles of the neck were seen. He has opined that this

is a violent form of death and it is a homicidal death. Injury No.1

and 9 to 18 are possible during the struggle and resistance and

injury Nos.2 to 8 are due to throttling and at the time of throttling,

the head is struck on a hard substance. He has opined that cause

of death was asphysxia due to throttling with head injury. Though,

the Doctor has given admission in the cross-examination that if

person falls from the hill and comes in contact with stone, in a

revolving down position, the injury Nos.9 to 18 and internal injury

shown in the postmortem are possible due to impact of stones.

However, he has denied the suggestion that his opinion that the

death was due to asphyxia due to throttling with head injury is

false. His admission that such death is possible is not of any use

to the defence in view of the entire evidence of the Doctor and if

the overall evidence is taken alongwith notes of postmortem. The

Investigating Officer PW6 Narayan Bajirao Nanvare has stated that

he was a PSI at Paud police station on that day. He went to

Sassoon hospital and thereafter, he recorded FIR (exh. 23). He

registered offence at C.R. No.160 of 2008 under sections 498A,

302 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the

Page 14 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

FIR. Then, on the same day, he visited the house of the accused,

drew panchanama. He also said that after collecting the evidence,

he filed chargesheet. In fact, the panchanama of spot of offence is

material because it does not throw much light. Thus, the evidence

of four witnesses i.e., PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 and so also, the

Doctor is consistent on the point of motive, assault, antemortem

injuries, death of Roopali and subsequent extra-judicial confession

by the 4 accused. Had Roopali suffered accidental death, then,

the accused himself would have immediately informed the father

and relatives of Roopali. He himself would have given the

complaint to the police about the accidental death of Roopali and

would have shown the spot from where she had fallen. However,

nothing of such nature was done by the accused after the death of

Roopali. Thus, in view of this post death conduct of the accused,

we have no hesitation to accept the evidence of the witnesses on

the point of extra-judicial confession. It is, therefore, an important

and clinching evidence against the accused and thus, it completes

the chain of the circumstances, which are sufficiently established

by the prosecution through oral and circumstantial evidence. The

evidence of all the witnesses are found very natural in view of the

time sequence. Hence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution

Page 15 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::
apeal.52.2013_3.10.doc

has proved its case against the applicant/accused and no

interference is required in the sentence of conviction.

12. The appeal is thus dismissed.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Page 16 of 16

::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 02/11/2018 01:35:01 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation