STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BABAN KISAN KULVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals, filed by the State Government, are directed against the judgment and order dated 20/5/1992 rendered by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 483 of 1991. In the said case, three accused were put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and all the three accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for three months and accused nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted from the said charge. Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 1992 has been filed by the State for enhancement of sentence awarded to accused no.1 on account of his conviction under Section 498-A of IPC. Whereas Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 1992 has been filed challenging the acquittal of accused nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 each read with Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, accused no.1 is the son of accused no.3 and he, while working in a factory near Thane, was residing in the house of accused no.2 at the relevant time as a paying guest and the son of accused no.2 was also working with accused no.1 and thus they were friends. Soluchana, the daughter of Laxman Gangaram Gholap, was married to accused no.1 on 29/5/1989. After marriage, she stayed for about 25 days with accused no.1 in the house of accused no.2 at Boisar and thereafter for about 6-7 months she stayed with her in-laws at village Udapur, Taluka - Junnar, District - Pune. She wanted to join her husband's company, but the accused no.1, under the pretext that there was no residential accommodation and cooking utensils etc., retained her with his parents. She got fed up and went to her maternal home at village Rohokadi, Taluka - Junnar, District - Pune and she stayed with her parents for about one year. During the said stay of one year, she had informed her parents that accused no.1 was demanding Rs.20,000/- for acquiring a residential accommodation and he expected the said amount to be paid by her father, but his financial position did not permit him to do so. Just one week prior to the date of the incident, PW 2 - Tukaram Gholap, the brother of Sulochana, had taken her to Boisar and he stayed overnight with accused no.1 in the house of accused no.2 and returned to his village. On 20/6/1991 between 9.30 a.m. to 11 a.m., when there was no one in the house of accused no.2, Soluchana was found dead with burn injuries. Accused nos.1 and 2, along with the daughter-in-law of accused no.2, had gone to a doctor and when they returned around 12.15 p.m., the house was locked from inside and could not be opened. Accused no.1 peeped through the window and saw some smoke smell coming from inside the house. The door was forcibly opened and when the accused nos.1 and 2 went inside, they noticed that Sulochana was lying dead in the toilet block and her entire body was burnt. Accused no.1, therefore, went to the police station at Boisar and lodged a report, which was registered as accidental death (Exh. 23). The police arrived at the scene, drew the inquest panchanama (Exh. 12) and spot panchanama (Exh.13). The dead body was forwarded for post mortem and P.M. report at Exh. 19 was received on 21/6/1991. On 21/6/2991 Otur Police Station informed PW 1 - Laxman Gangaram Gholap that his sister Soluchana was dead as per the information received from the Boisar Police Station and, therefore, PW 1 reached Boisar and subsequently he was taken to Kelwa Mahim and the dead body of Sulochana was handed over to him. On 22/6/1991, PW 1 lodged the FIR (Exh. 9) at Boisar Police Station and C.R. No. I-68 of 1991 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 each read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused.

(3.) During the course of investigation, accused nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 22/6/1991 and accused no.3 was arrested on 23/6/1991 and subsequently they were released on bail. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed and the case was committed on 30/8/1991 to the Sessions Court by the learned JMFC. Charge was framed on 31/1/1992. The prosecution examined in all six witnesses. Dr. Dinkar Gavit - PW 3 was the Medical Officer, who had conducted the post mortem and signed P.M. notes at Exh. 19. PW 4 - Jagjitsingh Rudrasingh and PW 5 - Harischandra Valmiki who were the neighbours, turned hostile. PW 6 - Dinkar Bagal was the PSI attached to the Boisar Police Station and was the Investigating Officer. C.A. reports at Exhs.27 and 28 were also placed on record. Defence admitted the inquest panchanama at Exh.12, spot panchanama at Exh.13 and the panchanama for the recovery of clothes and articles from the dead body, Exh.14. Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of all the accused was recorded and accused nos.1 and 2 claimed that they were falsely implicated, whereas accused no.3, while denying his involvement, stated that at the relevant time he was in his house at village Udapur, Taluka - Junnar, District - Pune.