LexDNYANESHWAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, A DNY ANESHWAR ~ v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA . • MARCH 20, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] t- f >- Penal Code, 1860-s. 302-Unnatural death ofwife-ln her matrimonial ~ house-Opinion of doctor that the death was caused due to asphyxia All c ((throttling)-Conviction by trial court, of the husband-accused alongwith his parents ulss 302 and 498-A-High Court convicting husband-accused alone uls 302-0n appeal, plea that accused entitled to benefit of doubt as the cause of death due to asphyxia cannot be true in absence of fracture on the body of deceased-Held: The accused cannot get benefit of the fact that death due to failure to notice some injuries-Other. i1?juries showing that D death was caused-Whe.n the couple was last seen in the premises, to which an outsider may not have access, it is for the husband to explain the ground .l. for unnatural death of his wife-Evidence-Onus to prove. ,.. Appellant accused alongwith his parent- accused Nos. 2 and 3 caused death of his wife. According to prosecution case, deceased was found dead in ~ E her matrimonial ~ouse. FIR was lodged by PW I (father of the deceased.). The doctor (PW 9) who conducted post-mortem examination found that the cause of death was due to asphyxia (throttling). During trial, it was averred that the accused , after the marriage, had all along been demanding money from the parents of the deceased and she was also subjected to harassment and ill-treatment . Charge of harassment was proved by PWs 1, 2 and 5. Trial .... i F Court convicted all the accused u/ss 302 and 498-A IPC. High Court found "- the appellant accused alone guilty of offence u/s 302 IPC and hence convicted ~ him accordingly and acquitted the other accused. In appeal to this c;ourt appellant contended that in absence of fracture ): G on the body of the deceased, cause of death could not have been stated to be ' asphyxia (throttling). I .1 ~ Dismissing the appeal, the Court :-., HELD: I. The deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is I H 248 I .... ' ...., >-- '- ;. ~ +- ..,,.. DNY ANESHW AR v. ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S. B. SINHA . .I.] 249 not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else . It is, also not his case that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises, to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wifc. IPara 1011251-C-D) Raj Kumar Parsad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2007) I SCALE 19, relied on. 2. If the prosecution case in regard to homicidal nature of the death of the deceased is accepted, the ante-mortem injuries clearly go to show that she had been done:'to death. Only because PW 9 (the doctor) failed to notice some injuries on her neck so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that the death was caused by asphyxia, the appellant in a case of this nature cannot take benefit thereof. !Para 11) (252-B-C) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2006. . From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurngabad in Crl Appeal No. 391 of 2001. Revathy Raghavan for the Appellant. Sushi! Karanjkar and Ravindra Keshvrao Adsure for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J: 1. Appellant before us is the husband of the deceased Leelabai. They were married on 31.5.2002. She was found dead at her matrimonial home on 3.4.2003 . 2. On a post-mortem examination having been conducted, PW-9 Dr. Ravindra the Medical officer, civil Hospital, Jaina found the following ante- mortem injuries on her person: "(I) Contusion over R High laterally upper part Reddish chest 3 cm x 2·cm. (2) Bluish discoloration present over R leg beaten knife 2 cm x 2cm. A B c D E F G (3) Bluish discoloration present over R leg near ankle joint 2 cm H A B c E 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. x 2 cm. (4) Bruise over neck below L Mandible I inch x 1.5 cm each no axis present beneath. (5) Bruise over neck ant below above injury 2 cm x I cm Eccbymonis present. (6)Bruise over neck and above thyroid contilage 1.5 cm x I cm Ecchymonies seen. (7) Bruise ove neck ant below R to above injury 2 cm x I cm Eccly main slan. (8) Bruise over neck and below above ignore and R side l stab x l cm Echaminc ccc ... " 3. According to PW.9 -Doctor R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.