Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, arose from the conviction of the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1999 for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, the husband of the deceased Ashabai, was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The prosecution case was that the appellant, who had been residing with his wife and mother-in-law (the informant) at Kauthali since 1996, frequently suspected the chastity of his wife and ill-treated her. On the night of 30th September 1999, after consuming liquor, he quarreled with and beat the deceased. At about 5:00 a.m. on 1st October 1999, the deceased cried out for help; the informant rushed to the room and saw the appellant throwing away a wire. The deceased, in a coherent state, conveyed through gestures that an electric shock had been administered to her left buttock. She was taken to the hospital but died en route. Initially, an accidental death report (A.D. No. 37 of 1999) was filed by the informant's brother. Subsequently, on the basis of the informant's complaint, Crime No. 175 of 1999 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The post-mortem examination revealed that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to electric shock. An electric wire was discovered at the instance of the appellant. The trial court, relying on the evidence of the informant (PW4), neighbours (PW5 and PW6), the spot panchnama, the recovery of the wire, the medical evidence, and the dying declaration, convicted the appellant. In the appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that there was no direct evidence of the appellant administering the electric shock; the medical evidence was equally consistent with accidental death; the neighbours themselves had received electric shocks from a wet wire lying outside; the FIR was lodged belatedly; and the earlier accidental death report raised doubts. The State's counsel contended that the circumstantial evidence, including the dying declaration by gesture, the medical opinion confirming homicidal death by electrocution, the recovery of the wire at the instance of the appellant, and the strong motive of suspicion of infidelity, conclusively proved the guilt. The court reserved judgment on 3rd July 2017 and pronounced it on 17th July 2017. The extracted text does not include the final decision of the court.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder by electric shock is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence and a dying declaration by gestures, where the defence argued that the death was accidental electrocution.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 33
Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2001 (Arising out of Sessions Case No. 118/1999)
S.S. Shinde and S.M. Gavhane, JJ.
Satej S. Jadhav (Appellant), S.D. Ghayal (Respondent)
Balasaheb s/o Namdeo Bhale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder.
Remedy Sought
The appellant seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Filing Reason
The appellant was convicted for murder of his wife by electrocution, based on circumstantial evidence and dying declaration; he contends the death was accidental.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in Sessions Case No. 118/1999, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Issues
Whether the death was homicidal or accidental?
Whether the dying declaration made through gestures is reliable?
Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict?
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: No direct evidence of giving electric shock; death likely accidental; medical evidence indicates heart attack symptoms similar to electric shock; neighbours sustained shock from wet wire outside, not in room; FIR lodged after delay; earlier accidental death report raises doubt; no motive.
Respondent: Medical evidence proves homicide by electric shock; cylindrical injury on buttock consistent with wire; dying declaration by gesture reliable; wire recovered at instance of accused; accused had motive of suspecting wife's fidelity; all circumstances point to guilt; burden on accused to explain death in same room.
Judgment Excerpts
the deceased in coherent speech told that the electric shock was given to her, and with the help of hand showed the place where the shock was given. (Para 5)
the cause of death is due to cardio respiratory arrest due to electric shock. (Para 11)
merely because the appellant left the house on the date of incident cannot be considered as circumstance against the appellant. (Para 10)
the deceased by gesture with the help of left hand informed her that the electric shock was given to her on her left buttock. (Para 12)
Procedural History
On 1st October 1999, the incident occurred; an accidental death report (A.D. No. 37/1999) was filed by the informant's brother. Later, on the basis of the informant's complaint, Crime No. 175/1999 was registered under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Sessions Case No. 118/1999 was tried, and on 15th February 2001, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, convicted the appellant. The appellant filed the present appeal, which was heard on 3rd July 2017, and judgment was pronounced on 17th July 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
