Against the aforesaid judgment, the State of Maharashtra, respondent herein filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
near the dead body.
As against this, the Respondent put forth a false story that 3 to 4 unknown persons entered the house and companymitted murders and murderous assault on the victims.
Since blood was oozing out from his head, PW 14 sent the accused to the hospital for treatment in a police jeep.
PW 14 immediately sent the two injured boys and girl to the Municipal Hospital, Bhusawal in a police jeep.
Since the companydition of injured Akhilesh was deteriorating, he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and he expired on 29.06.2001.
160 of 2001.
When the appellant accused was undergoing treatment in the hospital, on 30.06.2001, the Police Officer, Zillapeth Police Station, Jalgaon thought that the accused may number survive and sent a requisition to Muralidhar Sapkale, PW 16 who was the Executive Magistrate working in Treasury Office, Jalgaon to record his statement.
The two injured boys and girl were also taken to the hospital.
When they entered into the house, they numbericed smoke companying out of the room and Akhilesh, the son of Manohar, was lying in injured companydition on the company and blood was oozing from his head.
This is, in the sense, that there was numberthird person in the house, much less, having entered the house.
When enquired, the accused narrated the same story that 3 to 4 persons entered into their house and assaulted him, his brother, his brothers wife and children and they tried to burn his brothers wife and after taking household articles, they fled away.
He also heard cries of the wife of Manohar and the numberse of beating and groaning of small child from the house.
Dr. Sandip Ingale PW 6 and Dr. Sangram Narwade PW 11 , who companyducted the post mortem, were also examined.
183 of 2004 and 391 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant accused and allowed the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra, respondent herein and enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to death which was imposed by the First Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.
The respondent did number raise hue and cry, though according to him, in his presence, unknown persons entered the house and assaulted the victims.
Manohar, the deceased was serving in the Railway Mail Service, Bhusawal.
The later incident occurred at midnight when the victims were fast asleep.
The said statement, Ex.73, companytains companyfession on the part of the accused.
They also numbericed that Meena was partially burnt and a stone of big size and a gas cylinder with tube were lying near her body.
They also numbericed that Manohar, his wife Meena, daughter Monika and son Vishwesh were lying in injured companydition on the floor of the house.
As Manohar and his wife were dead, their bodies were sent for post mortem.
The respondent was alone in the house during the time the occurrence took place at midnight.
Thereafter, the accused demanded water for drinking.
The police also took all the three children to the hospital in a police jeep.
During the companyrse of investigation, the Investiating Officer recorded the statements of Pandurang Patil PW 3 and others.
This plea of the respondent original accused was found to be false and misguiding the investigating machinery.
They numbericed that Manohar and his wife Meena were lying dead and Meena was partially burnt.
The First Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, after examining 16 witnesses including Monika, an injured minor girl as PW 7, by judgment dated 04/05.03.2003 companyvicted the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/ , in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 307 IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ , in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
183 of 2004.
They also numbericed a square sized stone weighing roughly 25 kgs.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant accused has filed this appeal before this Court by way of special leave petition.
PW 1 also informed that when they went inside the house in the morning along with the police and others, they numbericed that Manohar and his wife Meena were lying dead and Meena was burnt to some extent.
The police arrived there within 10 minutes and took the accused to the hospital as he had sustained head injury.
The respondent, in his statement Ex.
After necessary investigation, charge sheet was laid in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal, who companymitted the case to the Court of Sessions.
The incident took place in the night intervening 28/29.06.2001.
He also seized clothes of the deceased, Manohar, Meena and Akhilesh.
PW 14 also recorded the statements of Monika and Vishvesh, the injured children.
Since it would be a dispute over the household matter, he neglected and went inside the house.
P 22 .
They also numbericed that the hands and clothes of the appellant accused were stained with blood.
He also numbericed smell of leakage of gas and something burning in the house of Manohar.
He heard the accused saying to his brother Manohar that you raised hands on me today, I will see you later.
Both these witnesses Dipak Thakur and Pandurang Patil stated in their evidence that on that night, numberthird person from outside came to the premises, much less, entered in the house of the victims.
The prosecution also relied on the statement of Monika, PW 7 , daughter of Manohar, who has stated to have seen the part of the occurrence.
73, which is accepted and found to be truthful, candidly admitted to have assaulted the victims acting in a brutal manner out of vengeance arising out of the dispute over the property.
Injured Monika and Vishwesh were shifted to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon.
Dipak Narayan Thakur PW 1 was the neighbour of Manohar in one of the premises owned by Pandurang Patil, PW 3 as tenant at the relevant point of time.
The respondent original accused , in his statement Ex.
73, has clinchingly stated that the victims were done to death by him, so also the injured children at the time and place of incident.
On hearing this, PW 3 informed the police over phone.
At the same time, spot Panchanama Ex.24 was drawn by PW 14 and he also seized the articles found lying there including wooden rafter having stains of blood and a big stone.
He also numbericed the smell of leakage of gas and something burning from the house of Manohar.
When PW 1 and PW 3 proceeded towards the house of Manohar, they saw the accused companying out of the house and when they enquired, the accused told that three thieves had entered into their house and they assaulted him, his brother, his brothers wife and their children.
Pursuant to the same, PW 16 visited the Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and recorded the statement of the accused which is Ex.73.
Immediately, he informed Pandurang Patil PW 3 the landlord and also one Pitamber Choudhary, who was residing on the upper floor.
The respondent assaulted them one by one and what is shocking is that victim Monika had seen the respondent companymitting assault after assault on her father, mother and her brothers Akhilesh and Vishwesh.
Thereafter, all of them proceeded to the house of the deceased Manohar.
It is further seen from his evidence that he then along with those persons proceeded towards the house of Manohar and saw the accused companying out of the house and when they enquired him, the accused told that three thieves had entered into their house and assaulted him, his brother, his brothers wife and their children.
391 of 2003 before the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad for enhancement of sentence from imprisonment for life to death and the appellant accused also filed appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
He did number cause alarm to the persons in the vicinity, thereby exhibiting most queer and unnatural companyduct.
He saw the appellant accused sitting by the side of water tank and having suffered bleeding injury on his head.
The death sentence was companyfirmed by the High Court and the matter was taken up before this Court by way of appeal.
Since the accused was detected as perpetrator of the crime, he was arrested.
On numbericing all these things, PW 1 rushed to his landlord, Pandurang Patil, PW 3 and also woke up one Pitamber Choudhary, who was residing on the upper floor.
The respondent did number deter, much less felt ashamed even while assaulting small children of his real brother when they were caught helpless, as they were sleeping when one of them was done to death and other two were injured.
Admittedly, the earlier incident took place at about 0830 p.m., which ended after quarrel and some beating by victim Manohar to the respondent.
According to PW 1, on the said night, at about 9.00 to 9.15 p.m., when he came out of his house to companylect the clothes which were kept for drying, he numbericed that some quarrel was going on between the accused and his brother Manohar in their house.
When they approached near the house of the deceased, they numbericed smoke companying out of the house.
41 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
PW 1 numbericed the first occurrence, that is, between 9.00 to 9.15 p.m., namely, at the time of companylecting his clothes which were kept for drying that some quarrel was going on between the accused and his brother Manohar.
Heard Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, learned companynsel for the appellant accused and Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned companynsel for the respondent State.
Immediately, PW 3, the landlord, telephoned the police.
Dipak Narayan Thakur the Complainant was their neighbour.
The nature of the injuries, which were inflicted on the child, more particularly, the injuries on his head itself show that how the respondent acted brutally showing extreme depravity and ruthlessness.
A crime was registered being Crime No.
His nail clippings and blood samples were companylected.
Thereafter, PW 1 entered the house of Manohar along with the police officers.
Though the respondent came up with the case that unknown persons assaulted the victims in the house, he remained silent in the house, though, in his presence, the victims were done to death and two small children suffered serious injuries.
In the midnight, at about 3.00 to 3.30 a.m., the Complainant heard some hue and cry from the house of Manohar.
In the mid night, at about 3.00 to 3.30 a.m., PW 1 again heard some hue and cry from the house of Manohar.
Later on, both were shifted to a private hospital at Aurangabad.
On receipt of the information, the Inspector of Police, Dilip Shankarwar PW 14 rushed to the place of occurrence immediately.
The appellant accused was the real brother of Manohar Matkari the deceased and was residing with him in a rented premise owned by Pandurang Patil, PW 3 .
Learned companynsel for the appellant accused has taken us through the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 7 and 16 and all other companynected documents.
The witnesses, particularly, witness Dipak Thakur, in the Midnight, heard cries of a woman groaning in pain and early in the morning, saw the respondent companying out of the house with blood on his clothes and hands.
On 28.06.2001, at about 9.00 to 9.15 p.m., when the Complainant came out of his house for companylecting the clothes which were kept for drying, he numbericed that some quarrel was going on between the appellant accused and his brother Manohar in their house.
PW 1 narrated the incident to the police which was reduced into writing and treated as FIR Ex.
He also heard the cries of Meena, the wife of Manohar and the numberse of beating and groaning of small child from the house.
It is seen that the murders have been companymitted and three persons were done to death in ruthlessness, showing that the respondent was totally depraved of and acted most beastly.
We have already stated that Dipak Narayan Thakur, PW 1 is residing in one of the premises adjoining to Manohar owned by one Pandurang Patil, PW 3 as tenant, at the relevant time.
All were under the impression that on the death of the accused, the said statement will be treated as dying declaration.
The assault on victims by the respondent was aimed at midnight when the victims were fast asleep and as such they were defenceless, showing that the respondent acted dastardly and was companypletely depraved.
When they were going towards the house of the deceased, they saw the accused companying out of the house and when they enquired, the accused told that three thieves entered into their house and assaulted them.
Both the appeals were heard together and by a companymon impugned judgment dated 03.05.2006, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant accused and allowed the appeal filed by the State and enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to death.
They also numbered the injuries of all the three persons.
In the early morning, witnesses Dipak Narayan Thakur and Pandurang Patil numbericed the respondent companying out of his house having his hands and clothes on his person stained with blood.
Brief facts Sham Kishor Bhaskarrao Matkari, the appellant accused was residing with his brother Manohar Matkari since deceased and his family companysisting of his wife, Meena since deceased and three children, namely, Akhilesh since deceased , Monika PW 7 and Vishwesh in a rented premises owned by one Pandurang Patil PW 3 .
In that, victim Manohar and his wife Meenabai died on the spot having suffered head injuries and in addition to that, so far as Meenabai is companycerned, she suffered burn injuries, indicating that the assailant i.e. the respondent original accused before the Court, caused burns by setting her on fire by leaking the gas from Gas Cylinder.
In the incident that occurred, admittedly, victim Manohar, his wife Meenabai and son Akhilesh lost their lives and as has been established on medical evidence, undoubtedly, these three victims died homicidal death.
The said Manohar and his wife Meena were having three children.
Learned companynsel for the appellant though canvassed the ultimate companyviction imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court mainly companytended before us with regard to the death sentence awarded by the High Court.
In the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death sentence, from the evidence on record and companysidering the materials, the High Court identified the following circumstances for imposing extreme penalty of death The date and place of incident number disputed.
Sathasivam, J. This appeal is directed against the companymon final judgment and order dated 03.05.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.
