MAHAVIR JINGONDA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Ses-sions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1990. By the said order the appel-lant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 203 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer life impris-onment and fine of Rs.500/- for the first charge and RI for three months and a fine of Rs.300/- for the second charge. During the trial the appellant was on bail and on ad-mission of this appeal on 17/12/1991 he was released on bail on the same terms as be-fore the trial Court.

(2.) On 15/5/1989 the marriage of the ap-pellant was performed with Suman @ Sumati, the daughter of Jingonda and Babytai Patil, residents of Sangavade in Karvir Taluka of Kolhapur District. Suman came to reside at her matrimonial house with the appellant. On 5/6/1989 i.e. after 20 days of her marriage, early in the morning at 6 a.m., PWlO-Manohar Magdum who was a medical practitioner in the village of the appellant (Chinchwad, Taluka Karvir) was requested to visit the appellant's house. Shri Magdum reached the appellant's house and he was told that the appellant's wife had fainted. On examination of the patient Shri Manohar Magdum declared that the patient was dead and the patient was Suman @ Sumati, the wife of the appellant. The Po-lice Patil of village Chinchwad gave a tele-phonic message to Karvir Police Station at about 7 a.m. on 5/6/1989 about the death of Suman @ Sumati and accordingly entry was taken in the station diary at Sr. No. 12 on page 133. As the information was received about a cognizable offence the police team went to village Chinchwad and to the house of the appellant. The appellant informed the police officer PW12 that in the earlier night after dinner he and his wife were sleeping in a room and at about 4 a.m. on 5/6/1989 he felt somebody hit him on his head and when he opened his eyes he realised that he was gagged, could not sit and both his hands were tied behind. Within few min-utes his mother and father came to the room and released him and removed the cloth pieces from his mouth. He then looked at his wife and found that she was motionless and, therefore, he requested Shri Manohar Magdum to visit his house and it was found that the wife was dead. He then made out a case that past midnight somebody entered his house and more particularly the room where the husband and wife were sleeping and the said person or persons gagged him, tied his hands, assaulted him on his head and killed his wife before fleeing away. PW12, therefore, registered C.R. No. 120 of 1989 at about 10.20 a.m. based on the com-plaint of the appellant (Exhibit 37). The in-quest panchanama (Exhibit 8) was drawn with PW 1 Jambu Koge as one of the panch witnesses. The dead body was sent for post-mortem to the CPR Hospital at Kolhapur and on receipt of the PM notes (Exhibit 27) it was noticed that Suman @ Sumati died an unnatural death due to strangulation. PW12 -Shri Kale, PSI who had registered CR No. 120 of 1989 for the offences punish-able under Sections 457 and 460 of IPC, on the same day i.e. on 5/6/1989 recorded the statements of 12 witnesses and on 6/6/1989 he recorded the statements of other six wit-nesses. During the course of investigation he suspected that the accused himself was involved in the crime and, therefore, he was arrested vide arrest panchanama at Exhibit 15. On 9/6/1989 he submitted a report (Ex-hibit 38) pointing out that the appellant ac-cused had given a false information delib-erately and with an intention to screen him-self and based on the said report C.R. No.127 of 1989 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 203 of IPC against the appellant. In the meanwhile after the post-mortem was conducted, the clothes on the person of the deceased were seized under the panchanama at Exhibit 10 and PW 2 -Dayanand Kamble was the panch witness for the same. These clothes alongwith some other articles were sent for CA. After the appellant was taken in cus-tody, he made a disclosure statement which was recorded at Exhibits 15 and 16 and cer-tain articles were recovered from his house under the panchanama at Exhibit 17. The CA reports at Exhibits 33 to 36 were re-ceived and on completion of the investiga-tion charge-sheet came to be submitted on 24/7/1989. The charge being triable exclu-sively by the Sessions Court, the case was committed and on 27/8/1991 the charge was framed against the appellant.

(3.) The prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses and the defence did not exam-ine any witness. As per the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he merely denied his involvement and stated that he was falsely implicated, though in his complaint at Exhibit 37 on the basis of which C.R.No.120 of 1989 came to be registered, it was claimed by him that his wife was killed by some unknown third person who had entered his house past mid-night on 4/6/1989.