Bombay High Court: In the present case, an appeal was filed by the appellant-accused, wherein he challenged his conviction by the Sessions Judge (‘the trial Court’) for the offence of murder of his mother-in-law (the ‘deceased’) under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and contended that instead he should be punished under Section 304 Part II IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Division Bench of Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar C. More*, JJ., held that the deliberate attack using a tile, a wooden plank, and a knife, indicated the accused’s intention to cause death and therefore dismissed the appeal upholding the trial Court’s order of conviction.
Background:
The accused was married to the informant-wife since 2005 and it was alleged that he used to beat her as he doubted her chastity and thus, she left the house and started residing with her mother at Jalna along with her six children. The accused used to visit her and insisted her to come home, but both the wife and the mother-in-law opposed such insistence. Thereafter, two to three days prior to the incident, the accused visited Jalna and insisted his wife to go with him for cohabitation.
On 22-11-2021, while heading back home, the wife got the information that the accused had arrived at her mother’s house. She waited till midnight and when she moved towards the house, she met her 10-year-old son who told her that the accused had hit her mother on her head using a tile, a wooden plank, and a knife. She rushed home and discovered her mother lying dead in a pool of blood. Thus, an FIR was lodged, and the accused was charged with offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and under Sections 85(1) and 85(2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC.
The accused filed the present appeal and submitted that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly and that the charge was incorrectly framed. He contended that the trial Court erroneously relied on CCTV footage as it was not procured as per Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872. He also said that his wife was not an eyewitness, and the only eyewitness was his son who, he alleged, was tutored by his mother. The accused also dismissed the reliability of the medical evidence and requested to set aside the conviction.
The respondent, however, contended that the guilt of the accused was established beyond all reasonable doubts as the contents of the complaint were well corroborated by the testimony of the son and other evidence.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court rejected the accused’s contention and agreed with the trial Court’s appreciation of evidence and the resultant conviction on the evidence of the eyewitness. The Court also agreed with the view that the wife and the eyewitness corroborated each other on material aspects, and the medical evidence as well as electronic evidence also supported the case of prosecution. It was also observed that after the commission of the crime, the accused was found drunk, in the vicinity which confirmed his arrival at the crime scene.
The Court rejected the accused’s contention to not believe the testimony of the child as he was just ten years old and could be tutored. The Court noted that the eyewitness had denied such a suggestion and stated that he was never taught by anyone as to how he should depose in Court and concluded that even being a child witness, his evidence appeared reliable and trustworthy as it was also supported by other corroborative circumstances or material-on-record.
The Court also took note of the fact that the piece of tile used to commit the murder was recovered from the place as disclosed by the accused, and there were blood stains on it. Further, a blood-stained wooden plank and blood-stained knife was also found on the spot which were seized by police. The clothes of the accused were also stained with blood. The blood group of the mother-in-law was the same as found on the wooden plank.
In CCTV footage, the accused was seen having a scuffle with the mother-in-law and later he was found running towards the gate. The Court, regarding the objection of admissibility raised under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, held that even if the electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage was kept aside, then also, there was strong evidence on record against the accused.
As far as the motive was concerned, the Court opined that the accused had strained relations with the wife as she was not residing with him. The accused insisted the wife and the mother-in-law many times, to let the informant come with him, but the mother-in-law used to refuse the requests thus showing that there was a grudge against the mother-in-law.
The Court also analysed the contention of the accused that he should have been charged under Section 304 Part II IPC and noted that the accused assaulted the mother-in-law mercilessly by three articles namely piece of tile, wooden plank, and knife and therefore this could not be a case involving death due to single blow. The knife was in fact carried by the accused, thereby showing that he assaulted the mother-in-law with predetermination and indicated that he was guilty of the offence of murder and not culpable homicide.
Considering all the evidence on record, the Court established that the accused was guilty of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and dismissed the appeal. The sentence passed by the trial Court, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 5000 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, was therefore upheld by the Court.
[Vijay v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2023, decided on 24-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sandipkumar C. More.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Sohel Siddiqui, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.N. Deshmukh, APP.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
