Bombay High Court Considered Appeal Against Murder Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Based on Circumstantial Evidence. Trial Court's Conviction for Killing Wife with Grinding Stone Block Due to Suspected Infidelity Was Challenged Without Any Eyewitness to the Fatal Blow.

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay arose from a conviction recorded by Additional Sessions Judge-2, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.121 of 2014. The appellant, Sanjay Vishwas Kengar, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default rigorous imprisonment for three months. The prosecution case, as recorded, was that on 14 June 2014 before 6.00 am, the appellant committed the murder of his wife Aarti in their matrimonial house at Kolhapur by giving a blow with a heavy stone block used for grinding spices because he suspected her character. The prosecution case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses to the actual fatal blow. The defence taken by the appellant was of total denial, and no defence witness was examined. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses. The mother of the deceased, P.W.2, testified that her daughter Aarti had been married to the appellant for twelve to thirteen years and initially was treated properly for about four years, but thereafter the appellant began suspecting her character and assaulting her. About seven to eight months prior to the incident, the appellant assaulted Aarti, after which the mother took her to Satara. Aarti returned for cohabitation about fifteen days before the incident after the appellant’s mother convinced them that she would be treated well. On 13 June 2014, the mother went to the matrimonial house and Aarti complained of increased harassment and stated that the appellant had tried to throttle her the previous day. The mother promised to take her back the next day. On 14 June 2014, she received information that the appellant had assaulted Aarti with a heavy stone block on her head. She rushed to the house, found Aarti lying in a pool of blood and the appellant absent, and then lodged the FIR at 7.00 am. P.W.6, the sister of the deceased, corroborated the mother’s version and accompanied her to the spot. The neighbour P.W.5, Renuka Karade, deposed that she saw the appellant moving around the area, heard the appellant’s sister shout that the appellant had assaulted Aarti with a grinding stone block and had run away, and then saw Aarti lying in a pool of blood with a grinding stone nearby. P.W.4, another neighbour, partly turned hostile and denied that the appellant’s mother shouted about the assault. The appellant’s mother, P.W.9, and sister, P.W.14, were declared hostile after denying their police statements, which were proved through the Investigating Officer as Exhibits 49 and 54 respectively. The appellant’s minor son, P.W.15, did not support the prosecution, but portions of his statement marked Exhibit 50 indicated that he was an eyewitness to the incident. Panchas proved the inquest panchanama, spot panchanama which referred to the blood-stained grinding stone block, broken bangles and pool of blood, and seizure of the appellant’s clothes. The legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence, particularly when several key witnesses had turned hostile. The excerpt of the judgment provided does not include the arguments advanced by either side in detail or the court’s analysis and final decision, as the text ends during the summary of evidence of P.W.13. Therefore, the final holding, ratio decidendi and operative directions are not available from the provided text.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Law Points