LAXMAN RAM MANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts:

(2.) The deceased Vasudha @ Sangeeta was the daughter of Chandrakant Kumbhar (PW.4) a resident of Tupgaon. Vasudha had married to the Appellant, Laxman Ram Mane, on 16th May, 1990, that is about one and a half years prior to the date of incident, and after the marriage the couple resided in the matrimonial home at Vitthalwadi, Pali in Raigad District. As per the prosecution story Vasudha had gone to her parents' home about one month prior to the incident and had disclosed to her father and brother of her husband's dalliance with a girl Pragati by name, and that he would often abuse and beat her. Chandrakant told Vasudha that he would talk to her husband on this issue after the harvesting season was over. A few days after this visit Chandrakant received a message that his daughter had drowned in the river. He along with his son (PW.3) Vilas and Pandharinath and other relatives then rushed to Pali and a complaint of a missing person was lodged at the Pali police station by Pandharinath. On the 9th August 1994 the police informed PW.4 that a dead body had been found near village Shiloshi about 6 k.m. away from the village of the Appellant and the deceased. API Ramesh Deshmukh who was then attached to the Pali police station, recovered the dead body which was identified by Chandrakant and Vilas. After the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant and his two sisters for offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and were brought to trial. In the cross examination the suggestion made by the defence was that the deceased had gone out to answer the call of nature near the river and had accidentally slipped in and had been drowned.

(3.) The Trial Court examined the various pieces of evidence, they being (1) the evidence of the brother and the father of the deceased PW.3 and PW.4 respectively; (2) the evidence of Sunita Birwadkar (PW.2) a cousin of the deceased who deposed about the cruelty and harassment by the accused and (3) the evidence of photographer S.N. Dadholkar (PW.5) who deposed that he had taken the photograph of the Appellant with a young girl and that girl was identified as Pargati. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances the Trial Court convicted the Appellants for offences under Section 306 and Section 498A of the IPC but acquitted his sisters. This judgment has been affirmed by the High Court in appeal.