Shashikant Shivanand Zurale vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

By way of instant appeal, appellant challenges his conviction recorded by Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.176 of 2022 holding him guilty for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) vide judgment and order dated 19-09-2024.

PW2 Sushma, injured wife of appellant set law into motion by reporting Police that, her husband suspected her character and beat her. On fateful night, while she was sleeping with her child, accused came armed with scissor and inflicted blows with it on her abdomen, chest, hand, limbs, thigh and neck. While undergoing treatment in the hospital, Police recorded her statement on the basis of which Crime No.265 of 2022 was registered for offence under Sections 307 and 504 of IPC.

PW9 Sidheshwar, Investigating Officer, chargesheeted accused, he was made to face trial vide above sessions case, which culminated into conviction for above offence and the same is precisely challenged in the instant appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant, who is appointed through Legal Aid, would submit that there is false implication. That, already there were sour relations between accused husband and wife and implication is in such backdrop. She would submit that, except informant's evidence, there is no other convincing independent evidence. She would submit that, even otherwise injuries suffered by informant are simple in nature, which itself shows that there was no motive to commit murder. She would point out that, in cross-examination, even informant/victim has admitted that at the relevant time there was no quarrel. Thus, according to her, essential requirements for attracting offence of attempt to commit murder by no means would be get attracted. That, learned trial Court has incorrectly appreciated prosecution evidence. For above reasons, she prays to set aside the judgment of conviction by allowing the appeal.

Per contra, learned APP for respondent No.1 State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 victim would submit that, accused has used deadly weapon like scissor. That, he inflicted as many as eight injuries on various and vital parts of the victim. That, Medical Experts are examined as PW6 Dr.Onkesh, PW10 Dr.Sanchit and PW11 Dr.Aishwarya. That, there was recovery. That, Chemical Analyzer report is positive. That, case, as was rightly proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution, learned trial Court committed no error in convicting the accused and they pray for dismissal of appeal for want of merits.

After considering above submissions and on going through record, it appears that, before trial Court case of prosecution was rested on evidence of PW1 Ganesh, brother of informant, PW2 Sushma, injured informant, PW3 Sanjay, neighbour, PW4 Kedar, child witness, PW5 Basavraj, brother of informant. PW6 Dr.Onkesh , PW10 Dr.Sanchit and PW11 Dr.Aishwarya are Medical Experts. PW7 Chetan is Pancha to spot panchanama, PW8 Ajaykumar is the carrier and PW9 Sidheshwar, is the Investigating Officer.

In the light of nature of allegations, crucial evidence firstly is of informant injured followed by her family members and neighbour.

At Exhibit15, PW2 Sushma, informant/victim deposed that, accused was her husband and they have two school going children namely Samarth and Kedar. She deposed that, husband suspected her character and beat her. That, he was imprisoned in a murder case but due to Corona he was released and came home. That, he resided well for one month. That, on the evening of 20-08-2022, they had food and her elder son Samarth had gone to her parents place and she was sleeping with younger son Kedar. That, for drinking water she woke up in the night and at that time accused came with scissor and assaulted her as a result of which she screamed and her younger son woke up and he started banging the door and he managed to open it when neighbours came. That, her brothers namely Basavraj and Ganesh came and she was taken to hospital where she gave statement. That, her statement was also recorded before learned Court at Tuljapur. She identified her clothes.

While under cross-examination, she admitted that, she had not previously lodged complaint against husband for suspecting her character. She also admitted that, till the incident in question, he did not quarrel with her by suspecting her character. Omission is brought to the extent of she woke up to drink water. She also admitted that, her husband took treatment at Solapur. Then she is questioned about earlier case and in paragraph 11, she admitted that she does not sleep in kitchen but she had gone to drink water. Rest all suggestions are denied by her.

Here prosecution has evidence of PW4 Kedar, a child witness, who is son of both injured and accused and this child, who was studying in 7^th Standard, in his evidence at Exhibit 18 has stated that while he slept with his mother, he heard shouts, so he woke up and saw his father assaulting his mother with scissor and so he rushed to the doors. That, people were knocking it from outside and so he opened it and the neighbours came inside. He also names his maternal uncles for coming there.

Nothing adverse is brought in the child’s cross-examination.

Now, next testimony, which is of importance is of PW3 Sanjay, neighbour and this witness at Exhibit 17 claims that, in the night of 20-08-2022 shouts were heard and so he and his wife went and knocked the door, which was opened by Kedar and at that time, accused was assaulting his wife by scissor and seeing them, he went in bathroom. That, other neighbours came and someone made phone call to Police. That, thereafter brothers of Sushma came. That, Sushma was having bleeding injuries on her body. He also claims that he had seen scissor lying there.

Nothing adverse is brought in his cross examination.

One brother is examined as PW1 Ganesh at Exhibit 11 and other one is examined as PW5 Basavraj at Exhibit 19. They both in their evidence deposed that, after accused came out from jail, for one moth everything was quite, but thereafter accused used to beat Sushma by suspecting her character. On 20-08-2022 information was received that accused was abusing and beating their sister and so they reached her house and saw accused inside the kitchen and their sister was lying with injuries on hands, legs, stomach and neck. They claims that, their sister informed that accused raised suspicion on her character and assaulted her with scissor.

PW1 Ganesh admitted in cross-examination that, accused was taking treatment of Psychiatrist and that when he reached, accused did not try to run away. He also admitted that, accused was naive and also admitted that, when accused was released from jail, they were under pressure.

In cross-examination PW5 Basavraj admitted that in earlier case, deceased was his real uncle. Omission is brought in the testimony of PW5 about accused going towards the bathroom. Except this there is nothing adverse.

Now let us examine the medical evidence.

PW6 Dr.Onkesh, Medical Expert, who examined victim immediately after assault, has narrated eight injuries with measurements and dimensions, which are on the parts of neck, left and right breast, epigastrium, left forearm, left hand and left thigh. According to him, all injuries are fresh and are possible by scissor.

While under cross-examination witness admitted that injuries were superficial and simple in nature and also possible by right hand.

PW10 Dr.Sanchit, is the Surgeon at Solapur, who also narrated similar injuries as narrated by PW6, in his evidence Exhibit 42 and he has stated those injuries, which were sutured by him. According to him, impression of case was assault by multiple stab injuries. He also confirmed injuries to be possible by pair of scissor and in examination-in-chief, he stated that, injuries are superficial and not fatal.

PW11 Dr.Aishwarya is the another Medical Expert, who also examined victim while she was on duty in Surgery Department and she noted the history and shifted the patient to the ward for CT Scan. Even according to her, injuries were simple in nature and can be caused by scissor

In cross-examination of both above Medical Experts, nothing adverse is brought.

The sum total of above discussed material is that, there is cogent and convincing injured witness account about accused inflicting injuries by means of scissor. Scissor was spotted lying at the spot. Chemical Analyzer report shows that it was human blood. Accused was seen at the spot by none other than his own son PW4 Kedar as well as neighbours and brothers of victim and accused was seen confining himself in the bathroom. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence of not only injured victim but also credible evidence of child witness, whose testimony also inspires confidence and free from the aspect of being tutored. Rest witnesses, who have reached later at the spot and taken injured to hospital, have also deposed about seeing several injuries on victim’s persons. Medical Experts confirm eight injuries.

Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that all injuries are simple in nature and therefore, according to her, offence of Section 307 of the IPC does not get attracted. However, it is settled position that in offence of Section 307 of the IPC, infliction of injury is not sine qua non. Intention and motive of accused is to be gauged and the same can be gathered from attending circumstances including nature of weapon used, site of injuries etc. Here, there is no dispute that scissor is used, which if used for other purpose than cutting clothes, can sufficiently cause grievous or fatal injuries. Here, as there are eight injuries inflicted on eight vital parts like abdomen, breasts, chest and neck, intention of accused was explicit. Resultantly, charge of Section 307 of the IPC indeed gets gravitated.

Perused the judgment under challenge. There is no infirmity, perversity or illegality so as to interfere. Accordingly, following order is passed :