1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 270/2024

Deorao S/o Ganpatrao Mohije

Aged about 68 years,

Occupation : Retired Lineman,

R/o Karia Chowk, Wardha,

Tq. & Dist. Wardha.

:APPELLANT

Vs.

State of Maharashtra,

Through Police Station Officer,

Police Station, Ram Nagar, Wardha,

Tq. & Dist. Wardha

:RESPONDENT

Ms. Nisha Gajbhiye (Wasnik), Advocate for theAppellant,

Mr. K.R. Lule, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent/State.

CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND

NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

Date of reserving the judgment : 05.02.2026

Date of pronouncing the judgment : 16.02.2026

JUDGMENT : (Per : Nivedita P. Mehta, J.)

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha

in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2019, whereby the appellant came to be convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short ‘’IPC”) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine 2026:BHC-NAG:2630-DB

2

of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for three months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the PW 1, informant, Pinky

Gopal Kawale was residing at Natala along with her parents, deceased Rekha

Deorao Mohije and appellant Deorao Ganpatrao Mohije. The appellant, who

had retired from service at the M.S.E.B. office, Wardha, was habituated to

consuming liquor and frequently quarrelled with and assaulted his wife

Rekha.

3. On 17.10.2018, at about 4.00 a.m., the appellant left the house

to consume liquor and returned at about 9.00 a.m. in an intoxicated

condition. He abused and assaulted Rekha and, when she served him food,

he threw the plate and beat her. The informant was present at that time. The

appellant threatened both the informant and Rekha to leave the house or

else he would kill them. Thereafter, at about 9.30 a.m., Rekha left the house

for labour work and the PW 1 also proceeded to her place of work.

4. At about 10.00 p.m., when the PW 1 returned home, upon

entering the house and switching on the lights, she noticed Rekha lying in

the front hall in a pool of blood, with blood collected around her head. When

PW 1 checked up on Rekha, she was unresponsive. The informant raised

shouts, whereupon neighbours gathered. She then went to the house of her

3

sister Sangita and informed her that the appellant had killed their mother.

Thereafter, the relatives assembled at the spot.

5. On the basis of the oral report, First Information Report bearing

Crime No. 782/2018 came to be registered at Police Station Ramnagar for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant.

During investigation, the spot panchnama of the house at Natala Punarvasan,

Wardha was drawn and blood stains from the hall were collected on cotton

swabs, and a pair of chappals found in the verandah was seized. Inquest

panchnama was conducted and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The

autopsy disclosed stab injuries on the chest and abdomen and a contusion on

the head, and the cause of death was opined as shock and haemorrhage.

Blood-stained clothes, blood samples and viscera of the deceased were seized

and a site map was prepared

6. The appellant, who had absconded, was traced at Ambika

Chowk, Wardha. At the time of apprehension, he was found with a knife and

had inflicted a stab injury on his own abdomen. He was hospitalized and the

knife was seized. His clothes and blood samples were also collected. The

seized articles were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for

chemical analysis. Statements of witnesses were recorded during

investigation. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be

filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha. Since the

4

offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was

committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed Charge (Exhibit

3) under Section 302 of the IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses.

7. After appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court held that the

death of Rekha Mohije was homicidal, as the post-mortem revealed fatal stab

injuries on the chest and abdomen causing haemorrhagic shock, thereby

ruling out any accidental or natural cause. The trial Court noted that the

appellant was quarrelling with the deceased on the morning of the incident

under the influence of liquor and had threatened her, which established

motive.

The trial Court further found that the deceased returned home in

the evening and was seen in the company of the appellant at about 7:00

p.m., and within a short time thereafter, she was found murdered inside the

house. Relying on the “last seen together” circumstance, the appellant’s

abscondence, and his failure to offer any plausible explanation as to how his

wife sustained fatal injuries inside their shared house, the trial Court invoked

the principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Holding that the chain

of circumstantial evidence was complete and consistent only with the guilt of

the appellant, the trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as stated above.

5

8. We have heard the learned Counsel Ms. Nisha Gajbhiye (Wasnik)

for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.R. Lule

for the State.

9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned

judgment suffers from serious errors in appreciation of evidence and is

unsustainable in law. She contends that the conviction is based solely on

circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to establish a

complete chain of circumstances. It is further contended that there is no eye-

witness and the testimony of related witnesses suffers from omissions and

embellishments, with no independent corroboration regarding the alleged

quarrel or presence of the appellant at the relevant time. The “last seen”

circumstance is stated to be weak, as the evidence only shows the appellant

on the roof and not in the company of the deceased immediately before her

death. The appellant further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove

motive. Mere allegations of past quarrels or suspicion do not constitute a

proximate or compelling motive for murder. The medical evidence also does

not conclusively support the prosecution case, as the viscera report showing

alcohol raises an alternative hypothesis, and the forensic evidence is

inconclusive since no blood was detected on the knife and the blood group

on seized articles could not be determined. Therefore, the leaned Counsel

urges that on these grounds, the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the

6

appellant and prays that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC be set

aside.

10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

submits that the homicidal nature of Rekha’s death is conclusively

established by the medical evidence showing fatal stab wounds. He contends

that the appellant’s motive is observed through his prior assaults and

suspicion of the deceased which has been duly proven. He further submits

that the “last seen together” circumstance is firmly established through the

evidence of the neighbour who saw the deceased return home in the evening

when the appellant was present there. His absconding and failure to explain

the circumstances attract the adverse inference under Section 106 of the

Evidence Act. He contends that circumstances form a complete chain

pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant and are inconsistent with any

hypothesis of innocence. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that the conviction under Section 302 of IPC calls for no interference

and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

11. Before delving into the merits of the case by framing the points

for determination and recording findings thereon, it is necessary to discuss

and appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution.

12. PW 1-Kavita @ Pinky Gopal Kawale is the daughter of the

deceased and the appellant. PW 1 stated that the appellant used to consume

7

alcohol and quarrel with and assault the deceased suspecting her character.

On the date of incident, in the morning, the appellant abused and beat the

deceased and threatened to kill both of them. PW 1 left for work and

returned at about 10:00 p.m., when she found her mother lying dead in a

pool of blood in the hall. The appellant was absent from the house. PW 1

raised alarm, informed her sister Sangita and later returned to the house,

where police had already arrived. PW 1 also referred to prior disputes

between the appellant and the deceased. PW 1 lodged the FIR. In cross-

examination, she stated that the appellant was not present when she

returned home and that no articles were stolen or damaged. She denied the

defence suggestions that an unknown person had entered the house or that

she had filed a false complaint.

13. PW 2-Praful Borge stated that on 18.10.2018 he acted as a panch

at the scene of offence in the house of the deceased. He deposed that the

police inspected the spot, found the deceased lying in the hall with blood

present, collected blood samples, and seized a pair of slippers under a

panchnama which he signed. His evidence corroborates the place and

manner of occurrence. He denied the defence suggestion that his signatures

were taken mechanically or that he was deposing falsely.

14. PW 3-Rupesh Prabhakarrao Gaikwad, a neighbour of the

appellant, stated that he knew the appellant and his family and that the

8

appellant used to quarrel with his wife after consuming alcohol. He deposed

that on 17.10.2018 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. he saw the deceased

returning from work and the appellant was present at the house, and that no

other person was there at that time. He thereafter left for Navratri Visarjan.

He further stated that around 10:30–11:00 p.m., on receiving information

from his father, he returned and saw the deceased lying in the hall with

blood around her and injuries on her body. In cross-examination, he stated

that he had no direct knowledge of the incident and denied the defence

suggestions.

15. PW-4 Sudhakar Gajanan Dandade, a neighbour residing a few

houses away, deposed that on the morning of the incident he saw the

accused quarrelling with the deceased. He further stated that around 10:00

p.m. he learnt about the death of the appellant’s wife and, on going to the

house, saw her lying in the hall with blood nearby while many persons had

gathered. This evidence corroborates PW 1 regarding quarrel before the

incident. He denied the defence suggestions in cross-examination.

16. PW 5-Ratnadeep Parasram Dange stated that on 18.10.2018 he

was called to Ramnagar Police Station. He stated that a seizure panchnama

was prepared and signed by him and another witness. He proved seizure of

knife stained with blood. The weapon was later examined by the Medical

Officer.

9

17. PW 6-Raja Shankarrao Sarsar stated that on 13.11.2018 he was

called to Ramnagar Police Station where, in his presence, clothes of the

appellant were seized under a panchnama which he signed. In cross-

examination, he stated that the clothes were already with police and were

opened and inspected in his presence and that similar clothes are available in

the market. He denied the defence suggestions.

18. PW 7-Sangita Subhash Shirnathe, daughter of the deceased and

the appellant, stated that the appellant used to consume alcohol and assault

and abuse her mother and other family members. She deposed that two days

prior to the incident and again on the morning of the incident, the deceased

had informed her about being beaten by the appellant. She stated that the

deceased worked in the field with her till evening and thereafter returned

home. At about 10:00 p.m., PW 1 came to her house and informed that their

mother had died, after which she went to the parental house and saw the

deceased lying in the hall with blood near her. She stated that police arrived

and a complaint was lodged. She denied the defence suggestions.

19. PW 8-Kajal Ashwin Bawane, another daughter of the deceased

and the appellant, stated that the appellant used to drink alcohol and beat

the deceased and that earlier complaints had been lodged against him. She

deposed that on 17.10.2018 she was at Nagpur and received a phone call

from PW 1 informing her about her mother’s death. On reaching the house at

10

night, she saw the deceased lying in the hall with blood nearby and police

present. She stated that thereafter they went to the police station where the

complaint was lodged. She denied the defence suggestions in cross-

examination.

20. PW 9-Dr. Sandip Charde, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Wardha,

conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Rekha Mohije on

18.10.2018. He noted stab injuries on the chest and abdomen and a

contusion on the head, all ante-mortem, with corresponding internal injuries.

He opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the

injuries sustained. As per the viscera report, alcohol was detected in the body

of the deceased, which, according to him, did not affect the cause of death.

He further examined a knife sent by police and opined that the stab injuries

were possible by that weapon, while the head injury was possible by blunt

impact. In cross-examination, he stated that death had occurred within about

12–24 hours prior to the post-mortem and that the head injury could be

possible by a fall. He denied the defence suggestions.

21. PW 10-Ravindra Aade, PW 11-Majruddin Kazi & PW 13-Panjab

Rathod, Police Constables, proved safe transportation of sealed muddemal

and viscera to the Chemical Analyzer, establishing chain of custody.

11

22. PW 12-Shailendra Deshmukh stated that, on police requisition,

he visited the place of occurrence, inspected the spot, and prepared the site

map, which he identified in Court. He denied the defence suggestions in

cross-examination.

23. PW 14-Parvati Mahind, a co-worker of the deceased, stated that

on the day of the incident she and the deceased had gone for labour work

and returned in the evening, and that the deceased’s husband was present

when they left in the morning. She deposed that later at night the deceased’s

daughter came shouting that her father had killed her mother, after which

she went to the house and saw the deceased lying dead with blood present

nearby. She also stated that there used to be quarrels between the deceased

and her husband-appellant. She further stated that due to poor eyesight she

was unable to identify the appellant in the Court.

24. PW 15-Ashok Choudhari, the Investigating Officer, stated that he

took over investigation of Crime No. 782/2018 on 18.10.2018. He deposed

about seizure of the clothes and blood samples of the deceased and the

seizure and sealing of the knife. PW-15 stated that the appellant had

absconded and was later traced and hospitalized after sustaining a self-

inflicted knife injury. PW-15 further stated that he recorded witness

statements, sent seized articles and viscera for chemical analysis, and

obtained medical and forensic reports during investigation. After completion

12

of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet before the trial Court. In cross-

examination, he denied the defence suggestions.

25. PW 16-Sandip Kharat, a Police Constable, stated that while

searching for the absconding appellant, he and another constable

apprehended him at Ambika Chowk. PW 16 deposed that at that time the

appellant sustained a knife injury to his own stomach and was taken to the

hospital. He stated that the knife removed by the doctor was handed over to

the Investigating Officer and seized under panchnama. He denied the

defence suggestions in cross-examination.

26. Points for Determination :

The following points arise for consideration:

Sr.No. Points Findings

(i)Whether the prosecution has proved

that the death of Rekha Mohije was

homicidal ?

In the Affirmative.

(ii)Whether the prosecution has proved

that the appellant caused the death of

Rekha Mohije?

In the Affirmative.

(iii)Whether the circumstances relied

upon by the prosecution form a

complete chain leading only to the

guilt of the appellant and ruling out

any hypothesis of innocence?

In the Affirmative.

(iv)Whether interference is called for in

the impugned judgment?

In the Negative.

(v)What order? As per final Order.

13

REASONS

As to Point No. (i) :

27. PW 9, the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem

examination, has given a detailed account of the injuries found on the body

of the deceased. On external examination he found:

(i) stab wound over right chest wall 6 c.m. lateral to mid-line 1 c.m.

below right clavicle of size 4 x 0.5 x 12 c.m. measuring depth,

directed obliquely upward cutting right carotid artery piercing

the trachea.

(ii) stab wound over abdomen in mid-line 7 c.m. above umbilical of

size 3 x 1 c.m. cavity deep,

(iii) contusion over right occipital parietal region of head of size 6 x

2 c.m. All above injuries were ante-mortem.

On internal examination of head, he found under scalp

heamatoma right occipital parietal region of size 10 x 4 c.m. was found. This

internal injury co-relate with above external injury No.3. On internal

examination of thorax, there was heamatoma of size 6 x 7 c.m. present over

right chest wall.

28. The Medical Officer has unequivocally opined that the cause of

death was shock and haemorrhage due to the said injuries. Notably, injury

No.1 involved damage to vital structures and, by itself, was sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cross-examination of the

Medical Officer does not bring forth anything to doubt his opinion. The

suggestion that the contusion on the head could be caused by a fall does not

14

advance the defence case, since the fatality is clearly attributable to the stab

injuries.

29. The viscera report indicates presence of alcohol in the body.

However, PW 9 has clarified that the same has no bearing on the cause of

death. It neither explains the injuries nor reduces their fatal nature. There is

no suggestion of accidental or suicidal death supported by medical evidence.

Hence, it conclusively establishes homicidal death. Accordingly, Point No. (i)

is answered in the Affirmative.

As to Point Nos. (ii) and (iii) :

30. The case is admittedly one based on circumstantial evidence.

There is no eye-witness to the actual assault. The question, therefore, is

whether the appellant caused the death of Rekha Mohije and that whether

the circumstances proved on record, when taken together, lead to a definite

conclusion about the involvement of the appellant.

31. The evidence shows that the deceased Rekha and the appellant

were residing together in their house at Natala. PW 1, their daughter, was

also residing there temporarily. It is not disputed that Rekha returned home

from labour work in the evening of 17.10.2018. Within a few hours

thereafter, she was found lying dead in the hall of the very same house in a

pool of blood. The spot panchnama and photographs leave no manner of

15

doubt that the assault occurred inside the house itself. There is no sign of

theft, ransacking or forcible entry. PW 1 has specifically stated that no

articles were missing. Her cross-examination does not bring out any material

contradiction or reason for false implication. Mere relationship with the

deceased does not render her testimony unreliable when it is otherwise

consistent and natural. The incident, therefore, was not the handiwork of an

unknown intruder.

32. The evidence of PW 1, PW 7 and PW 8 consistently brings on

record that the appellant was addicted to alcohol and used to quarrel with

and assault the deceased. The aspect of continuous domestic discord and

strained marital relations is not only confirmed by the family members but

also the independent neighbours like PW 3 and PW 4 who have corroborated

the same. Though they are not eyewitnesses to the assault, their evidence

supports the prosecution version regarding the strained marital relationship

and it being a matter known in the neighbourhood. Previous complaints

lodged by the deceased against the appellant in earlier crimes were proved

and identified by PW 1. Further, the evidence shows that on the very

morning of the incident, the appellant had returned home drunk, he then

abused and assaulted Rekha, and threatened her. This part of the prosecution

version has not been contradicted in any cross examinations or by any

material on record. This cumulatively establishes the strained relationship

and supplies a motive, though motive by itself is not decisive.

16

33. PW 14-Parvati, who worked with deceased Rekha, has stated that

on the day of the incident she went to work with Rekha and that the

appellant was present at home when they left for work in the morning. She

further stated that Rekha returned home in the evening between 6.00 to 7.00

p.m. This is consistent with the evidence of PW-3, who has stated that at

about 7.00 p.m. he saw Rekha returning home and the appellant standing on

the steps of the house. Thus, the evidence shows that Rekha had returned to

the home where the appellant was present and nothing is brought on record

to indicate the presence of any third person in the house thereafter. It is

within a short span thereafter that Rekha was found dead inside the very

house. This proximity of time and place assumes significance.

34. What assumes importance is the conduct of the appellant

thereafter. He was not present in the house when the body was discovered.

He had absconded. On the next day, PW 16 (police) traced him at Ambika

Chowk. Upon noticing the police presence, the appellant inflicted a knife

injury on himself. The evidence of PW 15 (I.O) and PW 16 regarding this

incident is clear and consistent. Such conduct cannot be brushed aside as

neutral. A person falsely implicated would ordinarily be available and protest

his innocence. Here the appellant was evading and then attempted self-harm

when apprehended.

17

35. In such a situation, when the homicidal death occurs inside the

matrimonial home shared by the spouses, the husband is expected to offer

some explanation consistent with innocence as to how the deceased

sustained fatal injuries. The appellant has not offered any explanation either

in cross-examination or statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the

circumstances leading to the death. In view of the law laid down in Trimukh

Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, and State of

Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, when a death occurs inside the

house and the accused offers no explanation, an adverse inference can be

drawn under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The appellant has failed to

discharge this burden. That failure in the backdrop of motive, last-seen

evidence and his subsequent conduct forms additional link in the chain of

circumstantial evidence.

36. The defence has emphasized that blood group could not be

determined and that forensic evidence is not decisive. These aspects, in our

view, do not dislodge the prosecution case. The medical evidence fully

corroborates the ocular and circumstantial evidence. PW 9 has clearly opined

that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by the seized knife

and that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to stab injuries.

The medical evidence rules out accidental fall or self-inflicted injuries, it

firmly supports the prosecution version and clearly establishes homicidal

death by stabbing. The scene of offence shows the assault occurred inside the

18

house. The surrounding circumstances point towards the appellant. In such a

situation, limited forensic lapses cannot outweigh the direct circumstances

proved on record. Forensic evidence is corroborative and not substantive.

Similarly, the contention regarding alcohol in the viscera does

not advance the appellant’s case, as the Medical Officer has clearly stated

that it did not contribute to the cause of death.

37. The evidence of formal witnesses and the Investigating Officer

establishes the registration of the offence, proper investigation, and safe

custody and transmission of the muddemal articles. Nothing material has

been elicited in cross-examination to doubt the fairness of the investigation.

38. When considered cumulatively, the circumstances proved on

record cannot be treated as isolated pieces of evidence. They form a

consistent chain pointing towards involvement of the appellant. The

homicidal death of Rekha inside the house, the evidence of prior ill-

treatment and quarrels, the fact that she had returned to the house where

the appellant was present shortly before her death, and the failure of the

appellant to offer any explanation as to how she sustained fatal injuries

inside the house, are all circumstances which stand firmly established.

Nothing on record suggests the intervention of any third person, nor does

any reasonable alternative hypothesis arise from the evidence. The

19

circumstances proved are compatible only with the guilt of the appellant and

are inconsistent with his innocence.

39. On a careful appreciation of the entire evidence, we are satisfied

that the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstances which

unerringly points to the guilt of the appellant and excludes every hypothesis

of innocence. Point Nos. (ii) and (iii) are, therefore, answered in the

Affirmative.

As to Point No. (iv):

40. In the present case, the trial Court has carefully appreciated the

oral, medical and circumstantial evidence on record. The conclusions drawn

by the trial Court are supported by evidence and are in consonance with

settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence. We do

not find any material omission or misreading of evidence in the approach

adopted by the trial Court.

41. It is well settled that an appellate Court would not substitute its

own view merely because another view is possible, so long as the view taken

by the trial Court is reasonable and supported by evidence.

42. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment of

conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

20

As to Point No. (v) :

43. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence on record,

both documentary and oral, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, we

proceed to pass the following order.

Order

(i) Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2024 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case

No. 29 of 2019, is hereby confirmed.

(iii)The appellant shall continue to undergo the sentence imposed

upon.

(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

MP Deshpande