DEVIDAS RAMSUNDER SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). There were two appellants before the High Court which dismissed the appeal. Only present appellant has questioned the correctness of the judgment.

(2.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : The appellant (A-2) along with co-accused-Santosh Devidas Shukla (A-1) and two others were tried in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1992 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur for offences under Sections 302 and 202 read with section 34, IPC and by the judgment and order dated 17.12.1993 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, they were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 202 read with Section 34, IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation. Except these two, others were acquitted by the trial Court. The victim of assault was one Manoja @ Manorama daughter of Tirathraj Tiwari (PW-5) (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). A-1 was a resident of Banosa. One Hira was married to A-1 in the year 1989. After the marriage, she was residing with him. A-2 is the father of A-1. It so happened that the matrimonial dispute cropped up between Hira and A-1 and as a consequence thereof she left the matrimonial home. She filed a criminal case against the appellant and co-accused alleging ill-treatment and cruelty. While the proceeding was pending, A-1 contracted marriage with deceased-Manoja on 8.7.1991 and in consequence brought her to his house and as such she was residing with A-1. It was on 27th May, 1992 that A-2 went to the police station Daryapur and gave the report (Exh.83) informing that the deceased was burning in the house and she was being removed to the hospital. P.S.I. Katkar on arriving at the police station rushed to the hospital. Dr. Shailaja Kale (PW-1) who was the Medical Officer, after seeing deceased-Manoja in the hospital at about 5.35 hours declared that she was brought dead and information was given immediately to the P.S.I, who was present in the hospital. That, information was sent to the police station where A/D of Murg Khabari No. 17/92 under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.) was registered on 27.5.1992. P.S.I. Katkar after getting the information of registration of crime prepared the spot panchnama in the hospital where the dead body was lying, vide Exh. 25. In the course of enquiry, he also made the inquest panchnama (Ex. 26) and seized some articles therefrom. He then immediately went to the house of accused No. 1, where deceased-Manoja was burnt. He prepared the spot panchnama of the scene of offence, vide Ex. 46. He noticed large pieces of skin, flesh and ashes lying, on the floor of the room, burnt matchsticks, bottle containing kerosene, so also a bowl smelling of kerosene. These articles were seized by making a panchnama (Exh. 47). He recorded the statements of various persons in the course of enquiry. The accused gave different versions in respect of the deceased-Manoja. He returned to the police station and lodged the FIR vide Exh.84 on the basis of which the offence was registered at Crime No. 101/92. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Since the accused persons abjured guilt, the trial was held.

(3.) The case based on circumstantial evidence which according to the prosecution unerringly pointed out the appellant to the author of the crime. The circumstances noted by the trial Court are as follows :