The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man who killed his wife with a hammer and then attempted to slit his own throat in front of their daughter following a domestic dispute in 2017.
The couple, married in 2004, often fought as 37-year-old Hariomdas Bainade, a mason by profession, suspected his wife Kalpana, who worked as a sweeper in a hospital.
On October 5, 2017, Bainade’s daughter was jolted awake by her mother’s screams and saw her father wielding a hammer. He ordered her to stay silent as Kalpana bled from her mouth, nose, and head.
Bainade then grabbed a marble-cutting machine and tried to slit his own throat. Police later arrived at the scene and rushed both Kalpana and Bainade to hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries.
Bainade challenged his conviction and sentence in the High court and pointed to the sole eyewitness in the case, his daughter’s statement who had not supported the case of prosecution.
The bench of Justices N.B. Suryawanshi and S.C. More rejected Bainade’s defence that he had consumed medicinal tablets, fallen unconscious, and that Kalpana had inflicted the head injuries on herself with a hammer, calling the claim implausible.
After going through all the evidence, the bench tried to ascertain whether Bainade succeeded in giving an acceptable explanation which would absolve him from the crime and answered in the negative.
“Such a type of defence is highly improbable,” said the bench while questioning if anyone can hit themselves so hard with a hammer on the head which could lead to death.
The bench saw that the other defence taken by Bainade, that somebody entered his house and hit the glass on his throat and caused injury to him, after which he fell down, was also not possible.
“By any stretch of imagination, such a type of defence cannot be digested, especially when both Bainade and Kalpana were found in injured condition on the spot of the incident. Even if it is presumed that some intruder might have entered their house, that must be with an intention of theft. However, nothing is there on record to indicate that somebody had committed theft of articles kept in their house, especially in the cupboard.”
Therefore, the bench saw no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
– Ends
