LAWS(BOM)-2010-4-82

PRAKASH MAHADEO GHORPADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On April 09, 2010
PRAKASH MAHADEO GHORPADE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under section 374 of Cri. P. C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed on 24/12/1990 by the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 159 of 1990.

(2.) The appellant along with his parents was tried for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC in causing the death of Gangabai (his brother's wife) on 12/4/1990 between 9 to 10 a.m. by setting her on fire. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to be acquitted of all the charges and the appellant - accused was held guilty for the offence punishable under sec-tion 302 and came to be sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. On admission of this ap-peal, he was released on bail as per the or-der dated 24/1/1991. However, the bail granted to the appellant came to be cancelled by our order dated 25/3/2010 and he has been produced before us at the time of hear-ing of this appeal.

(3.) As per the prosecution, Mahadeo Ghorpade resident of village Jawalgaon, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur had a joint family of his two sons, Nanasaheb and Prakash and Nanasaheb was married, whereas Prakash was unmarried at the rel-evant time. Deceased Gangabai was the wife of Nanasaheb, elder brother of the appellant and from the said wedlock she has two chil-dren. Nanasaheb was a contractor and it is alleged that the appellant was cribbing over the transfer of motorcycle by Nanasaheb to him as well as the license of contract. It is further alleged that the appellant felt that it was the deceased who was not allowing her husband to do either of these things and used to ill-treat her, sometimes assaulted her and abused her on these counts. One day earlier to the date of incident she was caught and assaulted by the appellant but she did not disclose the same to her husband and she felt that her in-laws were against her and were, in fact, instigating the appellant.