Though It Was Single Blow But Was Given With Intention To Kill: Bombay HC Dismisses Appeal Of Man Convicted For Killing Lover's Husband
|The Bombay High Court disposed of an appeal of an individual convicted of killing his lover’s husband. The Court determined the evidence in light of three interlinked factors; namely, motive, recovery of amount and last seen together. The Court held that the Appellant gave a single but severe blow on the head of the Deceased, causing a fracture with the intention to kill.
“Though it was a single blow but it was on vital part of the body and the said blow was given with the intention to kill the deceased, it was so powerful, it fractured skull of deceased. Thereafter, he left the deceased in unattending position and locked the door of the house”, the Bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shivkumar Dige held.
Advocate Mohit Rajan Salvi appeared for the Appellant and Additional Public Prosecutor M.M. Deshmukh appeared for the Respondent.
The Appellant (original Accused) filed a Criminal Appeal challenging the impugned order of the Sessions Court, whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Appellant was living with the family of the deceased Sudhakar Tribhuvan, and one day, when the daughter of the deceased was returning from her college, she received a phone call from the Deceased that her mother was injured in an accident. The Deceased informed his daughter that he intended to go to Panvel and that he had locked the house. The Appellant then calls the Deceased’s daughter, informing her that her father has arranged a stay for her and her brother. Both the son and daughter of the Deceased arrived at the given address, where the Appellant came and handed them the keys to the flats and some food. Later the daughter received a phone call to identify the dead body of their father. The daughter, thereafter, lodged a complaint against the Appellant, alleging that he committed the murder of her father due to his illicit relationship with her mother.
The Appellant contended that the Trial Court had erroneously convicted him based on only circumstantial evidence.
The Court observed that after analysing the facts and evidence, as well as the conduct of the wife of the deceased, indicates that the Appellant and the deceased's wife were in a close relationship and to remove the deceased from their way, they killed him and robbed the money from his house.
“From the evidence of prosecution witnesses and conduct of the wife of deceased as she did not go to Panvel nor attended funeral of her husband but she was staying with Appellant during this period, it proves that Appellant and wife of deceased had close relationship and to remove the deceased from their way, Appellant killed the deceased. The evidence produced on record establishes the motive of Appellant i.e. to rob the money of deceased and to remove him from their relations”, the Bench noted.
The Court asserted that the deceased was left locked inside the house and was severely wounded. Therefore, the Court held that act of Appellant does not fall under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Subhash Shamrao Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2023:BHC-AS:22301-DB)