Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 953
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1021 OF 2012
MANOHAR KESHAVRAO
KHANDATE ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. The accused-appellant was tried by the learned
1
Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati , in Sessions
Trial No. 197 of 2006, for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
with the allegation that he committed the murder of
his own wife Smt. Ranjana.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN
Date: 2025.08.11
11:54:16 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”.
1
2. The trial Court, vide judgment and order dated
th
14 August, 2007, convicted the accused-appellant
and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life
and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one
year. Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2007 preferred by
the accused-appellant against his conviction stands
rejected by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur
2 st
Bench , vide judgment dated 1 April, 2011. The said
judgment is assailed in this appeal by special leave.
3. We have heard and considered the submission
advanced at bar and have gone through the evidence
available on record.
4. The fact regarding the death of Smt. Ranjana
being homicidal, was not disputed by learned counsel
representing the accused-appellant. Otherwise also,
the evidence of the Medical Jurist (PW-4), who
conducted the autopsy upon the body of the deceased
Smt. Ranjana, establishes beyond all manner of
doubt that the death of Smt. Ranjana was homicidal
2
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
2
Crl. Appeal No(s). 1021/2012
in nature having been caused by blunt weapon
injuries inflicted on her vital body part, i.e. , head.
5. On a perusal of the impugned judgments and
the evidence available on record, it is clear that the
case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of
accused-appellant’s own daughter Ms. D (PW-3) who
was indisputably present in the house at the time of
3
incident. The child witness (PW-3) , aged 9 years,
gave convincing evidence stating that her father
(accused-appellant) used to pull a cycle rickshaw and
her mother (Smt. Ranjana) used to perform the
household duties and also worked as a maid servant.
Her father often beat her mother after consuming
liquor. On the date of the incident, she was sleeping
besides her mother. She was roused from sleep upon
hearing some commotion and noticed that her
mother was coughing. Her father was sitting nearby
her mother who had been covered up by a c haddar
(bedsheet). When the child witness enquired from her
father, he told that her mother was not feeling well
and that he would bring a Doctor. He forbade her
3
Hereinafter, “child witness”.
3
Crl. Appeal No(s). 1021/2012
from removing the chaddar and taking a look at her
mother. Thereafter, the accused-appellant went away
from the house not to return. The child witness
removed the chaddar and noticed that bleeding
injuries on the head of her mother who was immobile.
Upon noticing these bleeding injuries, she panicked
and called their landlord i.e., Shri Arun Bhagwantrao
Khandetod (PW-1) and his wife, who came to their
house.
6. In cross-examination, the child witness stated
that her father was sick and did not do any work and
used to be at the house. Her brother Nitin used to
help her mother by selling ice-candy and sometimes
he used to come home late. For this reason, her
mother and father used to quarrel with each other. A
pertinent answer was given by the child witness in
cross examination that she along with her father and
mother were sleeping in the house after taking meals.
She agreed to a suggestion that her father went out
of the house in search of her brother Nitin. However,
she denied the theory of false implication set up by
the defence and stood firm on the aspect that the
accused-appellant was sitting nearby her mother
4
Crl. Appeal No(s). 1021/2012
when she woke up on hearing the commotion.
Apparently thus, the child witness remained
unshaken in cross examination and stood firm on the
version set out by her in the examination-in-chief.
She has given unimpeachable evidence on the aspect
that her father used to harass and beat her mother
after consuming liquor and that she, along with her
mother and father, were the only people present in
the house at the time of the incident. Moreover, the
testimony of the child witness stands duly
corroborated on material aspect by the testimony of
the accused-appellant’s landlord Shri Arun
Bhagwantrao Khandetod (PW-1).
7. It is thus clear that the accused-appellant was
the only able bodied person present in the house
apart from the child witness when Smt. Ranjana was
beaten to death while she was sleeping besides the
child witness. The child witness woke up, on hearing
a noise and noticed that her father was sitting nearby
her mother whose body had been covered up by a
chaddar . The accused-appellant instructed the child
witness not to remove the chaddar which strongly
suggests towards his guilty state of mind because he
5
Crl. Appeal No(s). 1021/2012
did not desire that the child should see the condition
of her mother.
8. After giving an evasive reply to the child witness,
the accused-appellant absconded from his house,
never to return. The perturbed child witness removed
the chaddar covering her mother, only to find that
she had sustained severe injuries on her head and
was not responding. The child witness immediately
rushed to the landlord’s house (PW-1), who, along
with his wife, reached the place of incident. Having
found Smt. Ranjana unresponsive, the landlord Shri
Arun Bhagwantrao Khandetod (PW-1) stepped out
and alerted a nearby police constable i.e., Shri
Shilendra Fulsingh Thakur (PW-2) and also informed
the Police Station at Rajapath whereafter the police
arrived at the scene and the body of Smt. Ranjana
was sent for the postmortem and Crime No. 221 of
2006 was registered against the accused-appellant.
The evidence of the witnesses examined by the
prosecution clearly establishes that Smt. Ranjana
had been killed by the head injuries caused by
physical violence.
6
Crl. Appeal No(s). 1021/2012
9. The blank denial offered by the accused-
appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Code
4
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is rendered futile upon
perusal of the cross-examination of the child witness
wherein, the presence of the accused-appellant in the
house at the time of the incident has been reinforced
by way of answers solicited from the child in response
to suggestions given to her in cross-examination.
10. Suffice it to say, that the child witness had no
reason whatsoever to give false evidence implicating
her own father for the murder of her mother. The bald
plea of denial advanced by the accused-appellant in
his statement under Section 313 CrPC, is clearly an
after-thought and insufficient to discharge the
burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence
5
Act, 1872 .
11. Having thoroughly appreciated the evidence of
the child witness (PW-3), we find her testimony to be
absolutely natural, and she is a witness of sterling
worth. The lame suggestions given by the defence to
the child witness that she might have been tutored
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”.
5
Hereinafter, referred to as “Evidence Act”.
7
Crl. Appeal No(s). 1021/2012
by her grandmother and maternal uncle to give
evidence against the accused-appellant do not carry
any weight whatsoever. Her evidence is duly
corroborated by the testimony of the landlord, Shri
Arun Bhagwantrao Khandetod (PW-1) and the
Medical Jurist (PW-4).
12. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, the shirt
worn by the accused-appellant was found to be
stained with blood of “group A” i.e., blood group of
deceased Smt. Ranjana, thereby connecting the
accused-appellant to the incident.
13. It is thus discernible that the accused-appellant
and none else was responsible for causing the fatal
injuries to his wife Smt. Ranjana.
14. The High Court, upon reappreciating the
evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at the
conclusion that the evidence of the child witness was
reliable and trustworthy and that the defence of
denial taken by the accused-appellant was flimsy and
unacceptable. On the contrary, in terms of Section
106 of the Evidence Act, the burden rested upon the
accused-appellant to offer a credible explanation as
8
Crl. Appeal No(s). 1021/2012
to under what circumstances the deceased Smt.
Ranjana, sustained the fatal injuries, particularly
when the incident took place within the four walls of
the house where the accused-appellant resided with
the deceased Smt. Ranjana.
15. Accordingly, the High Court affirmed the finding
of guilt of the accused-appellant as recorded by the
st
trial Court by a well-reasoned judgment dated 1
April, 2011. It is our firm opinion that the conviction
of the accused-appellant as recorded by the trial
th
Court vide judgment dated 14 August, 2007, and
st
affirmed by the High Court vide judgment dated 1
April, 2011, does not suffer from any infirmity.
16. Thus, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being
devoid of merits.
17. It is pertinent to note that accused-appellant
was directed to be enlarged on bail by this Court
vide
th
order dated 10 December, 2018, in I.A. No. 171539
of 2018. In wake of dismissal of this appeal, the bail
bonds of the accused-appellant stands cancelled, and
he is directed to surrender before the concerned trial
Court within four weeks from today and undergo the
9
Crl. Appeal No(s). 1021/2012
remainder of the sentence, failing which, the
concerned trial Court shall take appropriate steps to
ensure that the accused-appellant is apprehended,
and he serves out the sentence in accordance with
law.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 30, 2025.
10
Crl. Appeal No(s). 1021/2012