The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by a man convicted for the murder of his wife, holding that the “unimpeachable” testimony of his nine-year-old daughter was a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, observing that the child witness was of “sterling worth” and had no reason to falsely implicate her own father.
The appeal was filed by Manohar Keshavrao Khandate against a judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which had upheld his conviction and life sentence for the murder of his wife, Smt. Ranjana.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Manohar Keshavrao Khandate, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that he had murdered his wife. On August 14, 2007, the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000.
The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The High Court, in a judgment dated April 1, 2011, rejected his appeal and confirmed the conviction. The present matter reached the Supreme Court via an appeal by special leave against the High Court’s judgment.
The fact that the death of Smt. Ranjana was homicidal was not disputed by the appellant’s counsel. The evidence of the Medical Jurist (PW-4), who conducted the postmortem, established that her death was caused by blunt weapon injuries to her head.
Prosecution’s Arguments and Evidence
The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the evidence of the appellant’s own daughter (PW-3), who was nine years old at the time of the incident and was present in the house.
The child witness testified that her father, a cycle rickshaw puller, often beat her mother after consuming liquor. On the night of the incident, she was sleeping next to her mother when she was awakened by a commotion. She saw her father sitting near her mother, who was covered with a bedsheet (chaddar). When she enquired, her father told her that her mother was unwell and that he would fetch a doctor. He specifically forbade her from removing the bedsheet.
After the appellant left the house and did not return, the child witness removed the bedsheet and discovered bleeding injuries on her mother’s head. Panicked, she alerted their landlord, Shri Arun Bhagwantrao Khandetod (PW-1), who then informed the police.
The prosecution submitted that the child witness’s testimony was corroborated by the landlord (PW-1) and the medical evidence (PW-4). Furthermore, at the time of his arrest, the appellant’s shirt was found to be stained with blood of “group A,” which matched the blood group of the deceased.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, after a thorough review of the evidence, found the testimony of the child witness to be credible and reliable. The Court observed, “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 bench noted that the child witness remained “unshaken in cross examination” and stood firm on her version of events. The Court dismissed the defence’s suggestions that she might have been tutored by relatives, stating they “do not carry any weight whatsoever.”
The Court highlighted the appellant’s conduct immediately after the incident as indicative of a guilty mind. The judgment states, “The accused-appellant instructed the child witness not to remove the chaddar which strongly suggests towards his guilty state of mind because he did not desire that the child should see the condition of her mother.” The Court also noted his subsequent abscondence from the house.
A crucial aspect of the Court’s reasoning was the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court observed that since the incident took place within the four walls of the house where the appellant was the only able-bodied person present with the deceased and the child, the burden was on him to provide a credible explanation for how his wife sustained the fatal injuries.
The judgment states, “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 Act, 1872.”
The Court concluded that the High Court had correctly reappreciated the evidence and affirmed the trial court’s findings. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the conviction.
Decision
Finding the appeal “devoid of merits,” the Supreme Court dismissed it. The conviction of Manohar Keshavrao Khandate under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment were affirmed. The Court cancelled the bail bonds of the appellant, who had been granted bail by its order in 2018, and directed him to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to undergo the remainder of his sentence.
