A sessions court in Thane has sentenced a 71-year-old man to rigorous life imprisonment for the murder of his bedridden wife, describing the act as a “deliberate and calculated killing” driven by property disputes and caregiver frustration.
Additional Sessions Judge V.L. Bhosale, in an order dated June 12, convicted Shobhnath Rajeshwar Shukla under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Sharada Shukla. The court also imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on the accused.
Refusing to extend leniency on account of the convict’s age, the court observed that “mercy cannot be extended at the cost of justice,” citing the “calculated nature of the murder” and the “complete exploitation of the victim’s vulnerability.”
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to November 8, 2019, when Sharada was found dead at her residence in the Wagle Estate area of Thane city. A suspicious white ointment was found applied on marks around her neck, prompting her son to lodge a police complaint. A post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death as asphyxia.
According to Additional Public Prosecutor R.P. Patil, the motive behind the murder was rooted in a long-standing property dispute. Sharada, a widow with three sons from her first marriage, had married Shobhnath, also a widower. Tensions arose when she wanted to transfer a share of a room—constructed using funds from her late husband’s property—to her youngest son, while Shobhnath insisted it should go to his own son.
Sharada’s sons, Vishal and Amol Yadav, testified that Shobhnath frequently expressed anger about having to care for Sharada after she became bedridden following a fall in June 2019. They also recounted his repeated threats to kill her.
Defence Arguments Rejected
Shobhnath’s defence counsel, Sandeep Yewale, argued that Sharada died by suicide, pointing to alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the medical officer’s inability to definitively conclude whether the death was by strangulation or hanging.
The court rejected this theory, noting that Sharada’s immobility made suicide anatomically implausible. It also took a dim view of Shobhnath’s post-incident conduct, particularly his attempt to mislead family members and doctors by claiming the ligature mark was from a mangalsutra.
Judicial Observations
Judge Bhosale concluded that Shobhnath’s actions were not the result of a sudden provocation but a premeditated act driven by animosity, property interest, and a desire to rid himself of a caregiving burden.
“This court finds no mitigating circumstances to extend mercy. The accused exploited the victim’s helplessness, acted with premeditation, and tried to conceal the crime with deception,” the order stated.
