BANDU versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 09-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BANDU 
·-1-
~ 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
MARCH 9, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
j_ 
c 
s. 302-Evidence of wife that husband killed their daughter by pressing 
her neck-Supported by medical evidence-No reason to disbelieve evidence 
of such eye witness-Conviction under s. 302 upheld. 
The prosecution case was that the appellant-accused was married to 'S'. 
Difference arose between them one year after marriage and 'S' had to live 
D 
with her parents. She gave birth to girl child named 'N' at her parents house. 
After compromise, parties started living together again. After few days, 
appellant started saying that 'N' was not his daughter and also prevented 'S' 
from feeding her. 
...; 
On fateful night, when 'S' and daughter 'N' were sleeping, the appellant 
E killed daughter 'N' by pressing her neck. Trial Court held him guilty under 
s.498-A IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. Both 
State and appellant appealed before High Court; he was - found guilty under 
s. 302 IPC and convicted to life imprisonment. Hence the present appeal. 
"' 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: Wife 'S' has deposed that the appellant killed his daughter 'N', 
who was only 1-11' years old, by strangling her. It has come in evidence that 
the appellant suspected the fidelity of his wife 'S' and thought that 'N' was 
not his child at all. There had been differences between the husband and wife 
as a result of which she was made to leave her husband's house, but she 
G returned to the appellant after giving birth to her daughter 'N'.The appellant 
did not allow her to feed her daughter and ultimately killed her by strangling 
.,. 
her. There is no reason to disbelieve PW-6. She is an eye witness to the 
~ 
incident and thus there is direct evidence in this case. She has stated that 
her husband was not allowing her to give milk and feed her child, 'N' and 
H 
848 
BANDU v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MARKANDEY KKt"JU. J.] 849 
- ~-
that her husband killed the child by pressing her neck. Her evidence is A 
credible and also stood corroborated by the post mortem report a.nd other 
evidence on record. There are injuries on the neck, cheek and eye of the child 
'N' and the doctor has given her evidence that the probable cause of death 
might be due to asphyxia due to suffocation.There is no reason to disbelieve 
the prosecution case as it is consistent with the medical evidence. 
B 
!Para 5, 6 and 71 [850-D, E, G, Fl 
• 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 
.. 
2006 . 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.2005 of the High Court of c 
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 13/1996. 
S. V. Deshpande for the Appellant. 
Ravindra K. Adsure for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
• 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against the 
impugned judgment & order of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal 
No. 115of1996. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
E 
3. In this case the appellant Bandu had been found guilty under Section 
498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment 
for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- by the trial court. However, on appeal by 
the State Government as well as Bandu, the High Court while setting aside F 
::-
the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A, held him guilty under 
Section 302 !PC and convicted him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 
500/-. 
4. According to the prosecution case PW6 Shanta Kotangale was married 
to accused Bandu on 10.5.1985. After happy cohabitation for initial 12 months, G 
the parties started having differences. Accused Bandu used to say that he 
-~ 
did not like Shanta and that she should go back to her parent's place. She 
conceived, but continued to face ill-treatment. Eventually, her brother took her 
to the parental house. She filed a petition for maintenance before the learned 
Judicial Magistrate First Class Hinganghat, in which a compromise was reached 
on 2.10.1990, and the parties resumed cohabitation. Thereafter she gave a H 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A birth to a daughter, named Nita, at her parent's place. Accused Bandu brought 
·-r-
back his wife and daughter to his matrimonial home. For a few days everything 
was all right, but thereafter the accused started saying that Nita was not his 
daughter and, therefore, he prevented Shanta from feedin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.