921-apeal-231-2021.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2021 Murli @ Murlidhar s/o Laxmanrao Yeole, aged about 38 years, Occ. Labour, R/o Pulgaon, Tah. Deoli, District – Wardha. ...APPELLANT Versus State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Pulgaon, Tah. Deoli, District – Wardha. ...RESPONDENT Mr. M.V. Rai, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. I.J. Damle, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 18/12/2025 JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON : 22/12/2025 JUDGMENT (PER : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) : The appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 18/2/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Sessions Case No. 109/2013, thereby convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 2] Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant had 2025:BHC-NAG:14762-DB 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 2 married Ashwini @ Pinki (since deceased) on 22/8/2010. He subjected her to cruelty with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet an unlawful demand of money, and also because they failed to meet the said demand. He further carried a blame of causing mental and physical torture to Ashwini for such demand. His insistence to get the amount from her parents resulted into Ashwini’s unnatural death. 3] As such, the appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. However, during the course of trial, a doctor, who performed postmortem, was examined as prosecution’s fifth witness (PW5 – Dr. Prafulkumar). His evidence led the trial Court to frame additional charge under Section 302 of IPC alleging that in the intervening night of 18/1/2013 and 19/1/2013, the appellant, in his house, committed murder of his wife Ashwini. 4] Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses to bring home his guilt. The defence of the appellant is of total denial and of suicidal death. He has examined one Abdul Hassan as defence witness. 5] The trial Court, after having considered all 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 3 attending circumstances, held appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. It, however, found evidence for offence under Section 304B of IPC, to be not sufficient. 6] The finding of conviction has been assailed by the appellant. However, the finding of acquittal, under Section 304B of IPC, has been not challenged by the prosecution. We need not, therefore, delve upon the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC. 7] We have heard Mr. M.V. Rai, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. I.J. Damle, learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State. We have gone through the impugned judgment, evidence, documents, etc. We will refer to the same to the extent necessary to decide following points that arise for our consideration. We have recorded our findings thereon for the reasons to follow. Sr. No. Points Finding 1 Has the prosecution proved that after marriage, the appellant, being husband of Ashwini @ Pinki (since deceased), subjected her to cruelty by willful conduct capable of driving Ashwini to commit suicide, In the affirmative 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 4 and that he harassed her mentally and physically with a view to coerce her to fulfill his unlawful demand ? 2 Has the prosecution proved that Ashwini suffered homicidal death ? In the affirmative 3 Has the prosecution proved that the appellant is responsible for Ashwini’s homicidal death ? In the affirmative 4 Whether interference is called for in the impugned judgment ? In the negative 5 What order ? As per final order REASONS As to point nos. 1 to 4 8] These points are interlinked and, hence, are being decided by common reasoning. 9] There is no dispute that appellant and Ashwini got married on 22/8/2010. There is further no dispute that Ashwini died in the intervening night of 18/1/2013 and 19/1/2013, which is within seven years of her marriage. The question is, whether such death has any nexus with the unlawful demand made by the appellant, and whether she suffered homicidal death, and if yes, whether the appellant is responsible for such death ? 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 5 10] In context with above, we have, with the assistance of both sides, gone through testimony of prosecution witnesses. 11] PW2 – Firojkhan had been to her maternal aunt, whose residence is near appellant’s house. As such, PW2 is a resident of same vicinity, however, his house was occupied by guests for engagement ceremony of his relative and, therefore, he went to his maternal aunt’s house to sleep. At about 1:25 am, in night, he heard screaming of Cat from lane. He went towards the lane and saw appellant roaming in the lane. He asked him as to what happened, to which he said that his wife was burning. He (PW2) called people around, took-up water in a bucket, and went to first floor. He saw appellant’s wife was lying on the floor, completely burnt. He got scared of the scene and, therefore, came down. Few others had also gathered. Police arrived in some time. His statement was recorded on 22/1/2013. 12] In cross-examination, he stated that when he went up, he saw that fire had already ceased. He denied that when appellant was on road, he informed him (PW2) that his (appellant’s) wife had already burnt. He, then, showed 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 6 ignorance to the suggestion that the appellant was in a frightened condition. 13] PW2’s testimony indicates that he came out of his maternal aunt’s house having heard screaming of Cat. Accordingly, he approached the lane, he saw appellant roaming in the lane. He asked appellant as to what happened, to which he said that his wife was burning. This conduct of appellant speaks volumes. He has made no attempt to save his wife. Such is not even the case of appellant. 14] The defence put up a case that when appellant was on road, he told PW2 that his wife had already burnt. This suggestion has been denied by PW2, however, the case, as put up, would substantiate appellant’s presence in the lane, and further, his interaction with PW2. Considering these facts, the appellant’s conduct to roam in a lane, when his wife was burning, is unnatural. 15] It was, then, put up to this witness that appellant was in a frightened condition. PW2 showed ignorance. If one has to presume that appellant, indeed, was in a frightened condition, there could be two reasons for the same; one is, that 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 7 he is responsible for the incident and, therefore, got scared, and second is, because of seeing the incident, he got scared and came down. So far as second possibility is concerned, it is not the case of the appellant that he got scared because he saw his wife burning or that he made an attempt to extinguish the fire and save life of his wife or that he shouted for help or for that purpose did any act to save his wife. Therefore, his status of mind, which is labeled as ‘frightened condition’, can only be on account of his involvement in the crime. 16] We will, accordingly, examine evidence of other witnesses to understand conduct of the appellant. Here we feel it appropriate to discuss the evidence of PW5. He was attached to Rural Hospital, Pulgaon as Medical Officer. He carried autopsy of dead body of Ashwini on 19/1/2013. He noticed that her face was swollen and distorted, tongue protruded, blackish red froth from nostril and mouth, skin tensed leathery and hard. Her body was burnt completely with internal organs roasted. It was with 100% burns. The injuries were antemortem burns. On internal examination, he noticed that scalp showed fissured fracture, brain was congested, shrunken 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 8 and extradural hemorrhage and clots were present, which were soft, friable and spongy. He preserved viscera for expert opinion. He deposed that as per his examination, the tongue was protruded out, which normally is not out of result of death due to burn. According to him, protruding tongue indicates compression of neck and death caused. Most importantly, he stated that burn injuries would have been caused after death. He also noticed that scalp showed fissure fracture, which indicates that either the head was banged against hard surface or some hard object was hit on the head. He opined that since it was with extradural hemorrhage and clots were present, it was an injury received before death. 17] The report of examination was shown to witness, which he admitted to be the same as written by him (Exh. 77). He then deposed that he has wrongly mentioned words ‘antemortem burns’ in column no.18. According to him, it should have been ‘postmortem’ in view of other points noticed by him. He said that the lungs were also oedematous. According to him, normally, in case of death out of burns, lungs are in roasted condition and friable. Oedematous condition 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 9 shows death due to other reason and not burns. He further said that froth was not noticed from larynx trachea and bronchi in death out of burns. According to him, soot particles are noticed in respiratory system, if the death is caused due to burns. If burns are after death, such soot particles cannot be noticed. In the present case, he did not find soot particles in respiratory system. Accordingly, he opined that the death was out of neck compression, and thereafter, the body was burnt. 18] He, then, deposed that to rule out possibility of poisoning, he preserved viscera and, therefore, did not give any opinion. The Chemical Analyzer report (Exh. 59) was, then, showed to him upon which he said that he can conclusively say that the deceased was not poisoned, her head received injury because of forceful hit and neck was compressed due to which she died and thereafter the dead body was burnt. 19] In cross-examination, he said that it is possible that tongue can come out of the mouth due to burns. He denied that fracture in dead body of Ashwini was out of burns. He denied that Ashwini’s death was caused because of burns. He denied that the injuries noticed by him, which includes fissured 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 10 fracture, were due to burns. He admitted that he has not opined, in the postmortem report, that the death was caused due to neck compression, and thereafter, the dead body was burnt. He, then, explained the same by saying that he had reserved his opinion as viscera was sent for examination. He denied that the head injury was during burns. 20] Thus, the appellant wants to suggest that the head injury, noticed by the doctor, was caused during burns. In other words, the appellant is trying to suggest that the head injury was not caused prior to Ashwini setting on fire but during the course of her burning, meaning thereby, in the writhe, Ashwini sustained head injury. 21] This theory is unacceptable. It is nobody’s case that Ashwini was writhing because of burning and/or there were signs of she having struck to hard object during the course of burning. In fact, the case put up by the appellant to PW2 was that when he (PW2) met appellant, Ashwini had already burnt. Significantly, the incident had occurred in midnight, where the atmosphere is quiet. In the circumstances, if the deceased suffered burn injuries antemortem, she would have screamed 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 11 in high volume, whether or not burning was self-inflicted or by the appellant. Nobody has heard such screaming. As such, PW2 heard screaming like of Cat, which cannot be co-related with screaming of a person under burning. 22] The prosecution, therefore, has successfully established that Ashwini suffered head injury and was put to rest by compressing her neck and that burn injuries were postmortem. Thus, homicidal death is established. 23] Admittedly, Ashwini died in the house, where only two persons were residing, Ashwini herself and appellant. It is admitted that appellant was roaming in the lane below the house immediately after the incident. Nobody has seen Ashwini moving, either prior to or immediately after the incident. That being so, and considering the evidence of PW2 and PW5, coupled with the evidence, which we will be discussing hereinafter, the burden shifted on appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to prove as to how did Ashwini sustain antemortem injuries as disclosed in postmortem. The appellant has not even made an attempt in this regard. His defence is suicide, which does not even appear 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 12 to be probable because of appellant’s own conduct and the evidence that follows. 24] PW1 – Radheshyam is the panch witness to spot panchanama. He is appellant’s neighbor. He deposed that the appellant had come to his house at about 1:30 am. He informed that his wife sustained burns. The witness, then, went to appellant’s house. He found Ashwini lying in the gallery of first floor. She was in up side down position. She was completely burnt. After some time, police arrived, prepared spot panchanama in his presence (Exh. 53). Police seized one nylon net, kerosene cane, one match box, ash and pieces of burnt clothes. Police also seen blood near leg of deceased. He also deposed that there used to be quarrel between appellant and Ashwini. He had noticed Ashwini in mental stress. Her mother had informed him that appellant had taken Rs.1 lakh dowry in marriage. The appellant used to drink liquor. He also deposed that police had seized appellant’s clothes, which he was wearing. 25] Thus, the clothes were seized immediately after the incident. He, then, deposed that he can identify the clothes of 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 13 accused, if shown to him. Accordingly, packets in which the clothes were kept, were opened in the Court. When the packets were opened, kerosene smell was noticed. A remark to that effect is made in this evidence. 26] In cross-examination, he admitted that Ashwini had not disclosed the cause of stress. He, however, denied that he does not know the terms between appellant and Ashwini. Nothing else is brought on record to disbelieve his testimony. The important fact is that the clothes of appellant had smell of kerosene. The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Exh. 58) will further corroborate this theory. Kerosene residues were found on his shirt and pant. The appellant has not explained why were there kerosene residues on his clothes. Admittedly, he has not made any attempt to extinguish the fire. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence to even suggest possibility of kerosene residues appearing on his clothes. In absence thereof, the only inference that would follow is that it is he, who has poured kerosene on the person of Ashwini and set her on fire after committing her murder. In doing so, part of kerosene transferred on his clothes, and smell thereof was noticed when 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 14 packets were opened in the Court. 27] PW3 – Sudha is Ashwini’s mother. She deposed that dowry of Rs.1 lakh was given to the appellant in marriage. He ill-treated Ashwini after marriage. He insisted her to bring money. He used to give life threats on this count. They had paid Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to Ashwini on many occasions for giving it to appellant. He used to beat her for money. He used to stop ill-treatment for some time upon receiving money. She, then, deposed that six months prior to the incident, the appellant had demanded Rs.1 lakh. The amount was not paid, however, they purchased plot in the name of appellant for Rs.1,75,000/-. Thereafter, the appellant contested election of Nagar Parishad, and demanded Rs.10,000/-. The amount was paid. She, then, deposed that Pinky conceived twice but suffered abortion because of assault by appellant. 28] As regards incident, she deposed that on 18/1/2013, at about 12:30 pm, the appellant had made a phone call to her and demanded Rs.10,000/-. She asked the purpose to which he said for repayment of loan. She asked him to come on next day. Thereafter, at about 2:00 pm, she received 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 15 call from Pinky reiterating demand of Rs.10,000/-. She again received Pinky’s phone at 5:00 pm. She informed her that appellant is demanding money. He is under the influence of liquor and said that if she fails to pay money, he will kill her in the evening. At 8:30 pm, she again called, but since the witness was outside, she did not pick up. She saw missed call at 8:45 pm. Then, at 1:30 am, the appellant called her and informed that Pinky died. She, along with her husband and relatives, went to appellant’s house. Pinky was lying on the floor. Her tongue was out of the mouth. There were marks of rope on her neck. There was head injury, and blood was noticed on floor. Police had already reached. She lodged report with police (Exh. 69). 29] In cross-examination, she stated that the financial condition of Ashwini’s family was better than that of the appellant. Ashwini was the only daughter and was pampered. Earlier, she used to drive two-wheeler, which she was not having after marriage. The witness said that she did not demand two-wheeler after marriage. She denied that since the appellant failed to fulfill her desire, there used to be quarrel 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 16 between them. She admitted that both the abortions were done at her parental house. She admitted that on both occasions, the appellant was at Pulgaon but volunteered that in spite of calling, he did not come. Thereafter, following question was asked, which is noted along with answer. 30] Question – Is it correct that once, at the time of Sankranti, Pinki had tried to commit suicide ? 31] Answer – No. At that time, it was her ‘Tilawa’. I was with her and Murali had assaulted her and had compressed her neck. 32] She, then, admitted that Pinky and appellant had been to their house. She volunteered that appellant had asked to search for employment. Accordingly, Ashwini’s parents had facilitated him to join as Driver of school van. She admitted that whenever Ashwini used to come to Gondia, her father used to give her ATM card for withdrawal of money as per her wish. It is also brought on record that for few months, appellant has looked after construction work of his in-laws. Thereafter, suggestions were given to indicate that Ashwini committed suicide, which were denied. 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 17 33] PW4 – Dilip is the one, who acted as mediator for marriage between the two. He deposed that in the intervening night, he received phone call from one Mr. Radheshyam. He told that Pinki died of burns. He immediately went to house of appellant and saw Pinki lying on first floor in burnt condition. Appellant was roaming around. He asked appellant as to what happened to which he did not answer. 34] In cross-examination, he admitted that Pinki was asking money for her expenses. The witness volunteered that appellant was demanding money and, therefore, she was asking for money from her parents. 35] PW6 – Prabhakar is father of deceased. His evidence is in tune with what his wife (PW3) said. He confirmed harsh behaviour of appellant towards Ashwini and that he was addictive to alcohol. PW7 – Ranjana is cousin of deceased. Her evidence indicates that Ashwini had informed her of repeated physical harassment by appellant for money. PW8 – Salimabi is another neighbor. Her evidence show indicates that on the day of incident, the appellant and his wife wanted to get loan of Rs.15,000 from Bachat Gat. 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 18 36] The evidence of these witnesses show that Ashwini’s parents have, to the best of their abilities, met with monetary demands. They also made an attempt to provide employment to appellant with the hope that he will show improvement, instead, the poor parents lost their sole daughter. All the witnesses have blamed appellant of harassing Ashwini for money. The evidence of parents indicates that whenever possible, the demand was met but not on every occasion, Ashwini, however, suffered harassment upon every failure to meet the demand. On the day of incident, she even informed her mother (PW3) that appellant will kill her in the evening if demand is not met. Ultimately, the appellant acted in furtherance of his threat. He didn’t utter a word about suicide when PW2 and PW4 asked him about the cause. Evidence of all these witnesses, coupled with testimony of PW2 and PW5 leaves no room of doubt that appellant is the one, who has committed Ashwini’s murder, and that prior thereto, he has subjected Ashwini to cruelty for monetary demand. The plea of suicide is a clear afterthought. 37] PW9 – Narendra is the one, who has drawn map of 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 19 spot. PW10 – Dr. Alka is a doctor, who treated Ashwini for abortion. As such, she deposed that bleeding and death of foetus can be possible due to assault on abdomen. She also opined that it could be due to abnormality that existed since beginning. 38] Thus, there are two possibilities for abortion, one out of it is abnormality since beginning, the other is assault. The parents of Ashwini claimed assault, but in absence of medical evidence in support, it is difficult to render a firm finding on this point. Nonetheless, such status will be of no advantage to the appellant because evidence otherwise establishes his nexus with the crime. 39] PW11 – Sunil and PW12 – Shivaji are the Investigating Officers, whose testimony is about how the evidence was collected and chargesheet filed. 40] The appellant has examined one witness to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He, however, said nothing in this regard. The only statement worth noting is that Ashwini was short tempered. He, then, deposed that he does not know how did she die. He 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 20 heard shout of one boy, named, Firojkhan (PW2) shouting for water. The witness went towards the house of appellant. Firojkhan said that Pinky sustained burn injuries. Thereafter, he left the place. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not state before police that Ashwini was short tempered. 41] Thus, his evidence will be of no help to the defence as it does not even suggest that Ashwini might have committed suicide. Rather his evidence corroborates PW2’s evidence of he attempting to extinguish the fire. 42] Put all together, the prosecution has successfully proved that after marriage, the appellant subjected Ashwini to cruelty by willful conduct capable of driving Ashwini to commit suicide, and that he harassed her mentally and physically with a view to coerce her to fulfill his unlawful demand. The prosecution has also proved that Ashwini suffered homicidal death, and that the appellant is responsible for Ashwini’s homicidal death. No interference, therefore, is called for in the impugned judgment. 43] Accordingly, point nos. 1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative and point no.4 is answered in the negative. 921-apeal-231-2021.odt 21 As to point no.5 44] Having answered first four points in the manner hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Sumit