GOPAL RAMU JANGLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-accused was charged for offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Sau. Seema Liladhar Patil on 14.4.1994 at 14.30 hours at Plot No. 12/1, Hareshwar Nagar, Shikshakwadi, Jalgaon. THE trial of Sessions Case No. 288/94 by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, ended in conviction of the appellant-accused. He is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year. THE said conviction and sentence is under challenge by present appeal. While admitting the appeal on 11.8.1995, this Court felt the sentence to be inadequate and hence directed to issue notice of enhancement to the appellant-accused. THE said notice is registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 314/1995 by the office.

(2.) DECEASED Seema was daughter of complainant Digambar Rane. She was married in 1985 to Liladhar Patil, who is Professor at B. Ed. College, Jalgaon. The couple, alongwith two daughters namely Chitra, aged 5 years, and Kuntal, aged 2 & half years, at the material time was residing at Hareshwar Nagar, Jalgaon. Liladhar Patil, husband of the deceased, had gone to Shirpur for the purpose of assessment of examination papers since 2/3 days prior to the incident. On 14.4.1994 at about3 p. m. , complainant-father of the deceased, while going towards township, was informed by one Kiran Rane, neighbour of Seema that Seema was stabbed by sharp weapon and she was taken to Civil Hospital by nurse Smt. Joshi and Baburao Rane. Father reached Civil Hospital to learn that the daughter was under treatment and after some time, nurse Smt. Joshi and the doctor came out and informed the complainant about death of Seema. Daughter Chitra narrated to grandfather about one person having visited the house, having talked to her mother (deceased) and thereafter having tried to throttle the deceased, and ultimately having stabbed the deceased. She also narrated the assailant to have escaped on a bicycle. The doctor and nurse Smt. Joshi also informed the father that on enquiry, Seema narrated them of assault by one Jangle, but she became unconscious before telling full name. Father lodged complaint with Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, on the basis of these details, which set the criminal law into motion. The investigation did not bear any fruit till 6th July, 1994. On that day, prosecution witness Kalpana Joshi lodged a complaint against present appellant about incidents dated 1.7.1994 and 5.7.1994. Therefore, statement of Kalpana was recorded in this matter also. Kalpana narrated the accused having made extra judicial confession about killing Seema Patil for the purpose of according threats to her on 1.7.1994, so that she should concede to his demand of allowing him sex with her. According to Kalpana, on 5.7.1994 accused had met her on the way to Balwadi at about11 a. m. and threatened to kill her and husband in case she makes disclosures. It appears that husband of Kalpana had gone for training. The incident dated 1.7.1994 was narrated by her to the husband on his return on 3.7.1994, however, husband advised her to forget the episode in view of cruel nature of the accused and prestige of the family being at stake. A complaint was lodged on 6.7.1994 after Kalpana narrated the incident of 5th morning to her husband in the evening. The prosecution claims discovery of bicycle and pen knife at the instance of accused. Panchanama of scene of offence, inquest, post-mortem report and analyser's report regarding clothes of deceased and the weapon are also brought on record.

(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel Shri. Dixit submitted that mere mention of name as "jangle" in the dying declaration of deceased Seema is not sufficient to identify the accused as the assailant, more so when prosecution has not brought any evidence on record to show that accused was acquainted with the deceased. Admittedly, there is no identification parade nor child witness Chitra has identified the accused from the witness box. According to him, in view of the fact that Seema died within less than an hour since the assault, it is doubtful if she was really conscious and fit to make this statement. Extra judicial confession being the trump-card of the prosecution, the same is attacked by Shri. Dixit by pointing out that the same is not to a person of confidence and none of the witnesses to whom Kalpana narrated the incident involving extra judicial confession is examined by the prosecution. Shri. Dixit also took an exception to non-examination of husband of deceased as also husband of Kalpana. According to him, absence of any motive further weakens the prosecution case. He urged to disbelieve the extra judicial confession and acquit the accused.