Rakesh Zagru Paswan v. The State Of Maharashtra
* 1/4 * 26-APPA-208-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.208 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.916 OF 2015 Mr. Rakesh Zagru Paswan ......Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra .......Respondent Mr. Ankush N. Dhokale, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. G.P.Mulekar, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM :
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE :
DATE : July 26, 2017.
July 26, 2017.
P.C. :
P.C. :
This is an application for bail during the pendency This is an application for bail during the pendency of appeal. The applicant-accused has been convicted and of appeal. The applicant-accused has been convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment in Sessions Case No.205 sentenced to suffer life imprisonment in Sessions Case No.205 of 2012 by judgment and order dated 15.4.2013 for causing of 2012 by judgment and order dated 15.4.2013 for causing death of his wife.
death of his wife.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.
the learned APP for the State.
* 2/4 * 26-APPA-208-2017.doc The applicant was living on the construction site The applicant was living on the construction site with his wife and children. P.W.2-Shailendra who was also with his wife and children. P.W.2-Shailendra who was also working on the same site and P.W.3-Mishrilal, Site Supervisor working on the same site and P.W.3-Mishrilal, Site Supervisor were eye witnesses to the incident. They stated in their were eye witnesses to the incident. They stated in their evidence that on 16.11.2011 they had seen the applicantevidence that on 16.11.2011 they had seen the applicantaccused was beating his wife, and thus brought the applicantaccused was beating his wife, and thus brought the applicantaccused from his house. Thereafter, victim went to the hut of accused from his house.
Thereafter, victim went to the hut of another lady, where again the applicant-accused started another lady, where again the applicant-accused started beating her. These witnesses deposed that for sometime the beating her. These witnesses deposed that for sometime the applicant-accused went to the market and came back to the applicant-accused went to the market and came back to the house and again started beating his wife. Evidence shows that house and again started beating his wife. Evidence shows that co-worker Kalicharan removed the wife of the applicantco-worker Kalicharan removed the wife of the applicantaccused to the hospital. It appears that the applicant-accused accused to the hospital. It appears that the applicant-accused went to the hospital by another auto-rickshaw.
The evidence of went to the hospital by another auto-rickshaw. The evidence of P.W.8-Dr.Kondar shows that deceased had sustained 18 P.W.8-Dr.Kondar shows that deceased had sustained 18 external injuries and four injuries were found during the external injuries and four injuries were found during the internal examination. One of the injuries was "contusion on internal examination. One of the injuries was "contusion on right 8 right 8th th and 9 and 9th th intercostal space, seen laterally red colour intercostal space, seen laterally red colour size 6 cm x 5 cm". He deposed, liver-Lacerated on right lobe size 6 cm x 5 cm". He deposed, liver-Lacerated on right lobe laterally due to external injury no.11, i.e., "Abrasion red laterally due to external injury no.11, i.e.
, "Abrasion red coloured on right lateral aspect of chest 8 coloured on right lateral aspect of chest 8th th and 9 and 9th th rib region rib region size 5 cm x 3 cm". P.W.8-Dr.Kondar opined that the injuries size 5 cm x 3 cm". P.W.8-Dr.
* 3/4 * 26-APPA-208-2017.doc found on the person of the deceased were possible by wooden found on the person of the deceased were possible by wooden plunk.
plunk.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that none of the external injuries refers to causing of rupture that none of the external injuries refers to causing of rupture of liver. More so, he would contend that 3 injuries were noted of liver. More so, he would contend that 3 injuries were noted in inquest, one on head, second behind the ear and third on in inquest, one on head, second behind the ear and third on back and, therefore, even assuming that the applicant-accused back and, therefore, even assuming that the applicant-accused had beaten his wife, the prosecution has not proved that had beaten his wife, the prosecution has not proved that alleged injuries caused by the applicant-accused resulted into alleged injuries caused by the applicant-accused resulted into the rupture of liver of the deceased which was cause of her the rupture of liver of the deceased which was cause of her death.
death.
We have perused the evidence of P.W.8-Dr. Kondar We have perused the evidence of P.W.8-Dr. Kondar and post-mortem report. Injuries stated here-in-above, i.e., and post-mortem report. Injuries stated here-in-above, i.e., contusion on right 8 contusion on right 8th th and 9 and 9th th intercostal space (internal intercostal space (internal injury) and corresponding injury no.11, as stated here-ininjury) and corresponding injury no.11, as stated here-inabove was sufficient to hold it a cause for rupture of liver. above was sufficient to hold it a cause for rupture of liver. Thus, upon reading the evidence of Dr. Kondar, the contention Thus, upon reading the evidence of Dr. Kondar, the contention of the applicant-accused requires no consideration and of the applicant-accused requires no consideration and rejected accordingly. Evidence of P.W.2-Shailendra and P.W.3rejected accordingly. Evidence of P.W.2-Shailendra and P.W.3Mishrilal is consistent, cogent and reliable and there is no Mishrilal is consistent, cogent and reliable and there is no
* 4/4 * 26-APPA-208-2017.doc reason to disbelieve their evidence. Taking into consideration reason to disbelieve their evidence. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the application for enlargement deserves no consideration and application for enlargement deserves no consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.
accordingly, it is rejected.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)