VILAS SHANKAR KARANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 10th January, 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 25/1996, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 6 months R. I. , for the offence under section 302 I. P. C. It is pertinent to mention that along with the appellant two other accused persons viz. Vikas Karande and Sanjay Karande, the brother and uncle of the appellant, respectively, were also prosecuted but they have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment and the State of Maharashtra has not preferred an appeal under section 378 (1) Cri. P. C. , against their acquittal.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the prosecution case runs as under : the deceased Suvarna was the daughter of Vishnu Bhongale P. W. 1. She was married to the appellant about 2 years prior to the incident. The appellant was serving as a peon in a school at village Sanbur, within taluka Patan, district Satara. After the marriage the appellant took Suvarna to village Sanbur. About 6 months prior to the incident Suvarna visited the house of her father Vishnu Bhongale P. W. 1 and complained to him that the appellant was doubting her chastity and saying that since she was good looking and he was hump how did she marry him. She also told her father that when the appellant went to attend duty he used to confine her in a room. Consequently, Vishnu Bhongale asked the appellant to treat Suvarna well. Suvarna also conveyed the said things to her brother Mohan Bhongale P. W. 3 and her sister Balabai P. W. 4. On the date of the incident i. e. 26-11-96 at about 11 a. m. Kalpana Lohakare P. W. 2, a neighbour of the appellant and Suvarna, heard cries to save, coming from the house of Suvarna. Consequently she and her mother-in-law Vithabai immediately went to the house of Suvarna. They saw that the appellant was holding Suvarna in his arms with the help of his legs. On Vithabais asking the appellant as to what happened, the latter told her that he was bringing Suvarna on the ground because she had hanged herself. However, Kalpana and Vithabai did not find any circumstances suggesting hanging, like rope etc. The same day at about 12. 30 p. m. the appellant came to the house of Dr. Mahesh Patil P. W. 5, which was situated in the same village viz. Sanbur. He asked him to see whether Suvarna was dead or alive and told him that she had committed suicide by hanging. Dr. Mahesh Patil proceeded to the house of Suvarna and on examining her found that she was dead. He did not see any signs of hanging in the room. He informed the Police Patil of the village. The same day at about 9 p. m. Shankar Krishna and his brother in law came on a jeep and informed Vishnu Bhongale P. W. 1 and his son Mohan Bhongale P. W. 3 that Suvarna was admitted in a hospital and asked them to accompany them. When they questioned them as to why she had been admitted in the hospital they replied that Suvarna had died due to heart failure. Consequently on the same jeep they left. On the way Vishnu Bhongale P. W. 1 took his daughter Balabai P. W. 4 and lodged a report at Dhebewadi Police Station, about the unnatural death of Suvarna. They then proceeded to village Sanbur, which they reached at about 1 a. m. When they asked the appellant and the acquitted accused as to how Suvarna died they asked them to leave the house and to take appropriate legal action. Thereafter, Vishnu Bhongale P. W. 1, Mohan Bhongale P. W. 3 and Balabai P. W. 4 waited near the house of a neighbour of the appellant. In the meantime Dhebewadi Police informed Vishnu Bhongale that they would come to village Sanbur at about 8 a. m. for performing the inquest on the corpse of Suvarna. Hence they waited. After the inquest on the corpse of Suvarna was performed her dead body was sent for autopsy.

(3.) THE evidence of Vishnu Bhongale P. W. 1 shows that after the corpse of Suvarna had been sent for autopsy he was taken by the police to Dhebewati Police Station where he lodged his F. I. R. , Exhibit 25.