ANANDA GENU RAJAPURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 18/3/1992 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Ses-sions Case No. 220 of 1990 thereby convict-ing the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 394 and 449 of IPC and sentencing him for life under all the counts.

(2.) Complainant - Dagadu Dhondiba Rajapure (PW 1) is a son of Chandrabhaga. He was residing with his mother Chandrabhaga along with his wife Yashoda Dagadu Rajapure (PW 7) and two sons and the youngest daughter at the relevant time. His two daughters were married and daugh-ter Kalpna had come to the maiden home to meet the family members. On the date of the incident i.e. on 21/8/1990 Kalpna was to go back to her matrimonial home and complain-ant was to go to her village to drop her back. At that time, deceased Chandrabhaga was at home and accused - Ananda had come to visit their house at about 10 a.m. After hav-ing their meals, the complainant and his wife Yashoda (PW 7) and his school going son -Sanjay (PW 6) left house along with Kalpana, leaving in the house the accused in the com-pany of the mother. The complainant, after leaving Kalpna near the village of her matri-monial home, went to the field for the pur-pose of doing agricultural work along with his wife and Sanjay went to school. At around 3 to 3.30 p.m. one person Maruti Dhondi Rajapure came running to the field and in-formed the complainant that his mother was serious. The complainant, therefore, hurriedly left the field, went to his house and saw people gathered around his house and he noticed his mother Chandrabhaga lying injured. He was shocked to see his mother in such condition and he and family mem-bers started crying in grief. The complainant found blackish and blueish marks around her neck and blood stains near her lips. He and other villagers also noticed blood in the store room near the kitchen in the house. Deceased was wrapped in a quilt and was made to sit near front door of the house {Oti/ osari of the house). It is the case of the pros-ecution that on that day at around 2 p.m. Sanjay had come from the school during the recess to eat and saw his grandmother lying injured in the store room. He started shout-ing, therefore, neighbour-Kisan Vithal Rajpuri (PW 10) who was chatting along with PW 3 - Dilip Tukaram Rajapure, rushed to the spot and then they informed the persons in the vicinity and thereafter Maruti went and informed the complainant in the field. The cremation took place on the next date i.e. 22/8/1990. After the cremation in the after-noon of 22/8/1990, the complainant remem-bered about the golden necklace which his mother deceased Chandrabhaga used to wear. It was a traditional jwellery, namely, "Vajratik" and was not found on the person of Chandrabhaga when she was found dead and when she was cremated. Complainant enquired about this gold ornament to his wife - Yashoda (PW 7) who also expressed her ig-norance about the said gold ornament. After search in the house, the ornament was not found so he made enquiry with his near rela-tives. PW 3 - Dilip Tukaram Rajapure, a maternal brother of the complainant in search of that ornament went to pachgani thinking that ornament might be sold to any trader or jeweller. In random enquiry, Dileep came across the information given by own-ers of Bhairav Cloth Centre by PW 4 -Hasalchand Ratnaji Bhandari and PW 5 -Rajendra Hasalchand Bhandari on 25/8/ 1990 that on 21 / 8/1990 one Ananda i.e. ac-cused had come to the Bhairav Cloth Centre and wanted to purchase cloth from PW 5 on credit. However, when such credit was re-fused by PW 5, accused offered to pledge one ornament, namely, Vajratik and PW 5 ac-cepted the pledge and in lieu of that he al-lowed accused to buy cloth of Rs. 525/-. Dilip (PW 3) on verification of the said ornament with PWs 4 and 5, communicated this infor-mation to the complainant on 25/8/1990. Complainant approached the police in the evening of 26/8/1990 and PW 11 - Manohar Ramchandra Chikale, PS1 of Pachgani Police Station thereafter registered offence at C.R. No. 29 of 1990 at Pachgani Police Station punishable under sections 302, 394 and 449 of IPC. The IO immediately arrested accused on the same day at around 8 O'clock in the night. After disclosure by the accused about the ornament, namely, Vajratik, IO drew recovery panchanama at Exh. 10. On the next day, IO conducted spot panchanama, re-corded statements of the relevant witnesses and collected sample for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation he filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pachgani and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Ses-sions which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 220 of 1990. The charge was framed at Exh. 3 for the offences as mentioned in the charge-sheet. It was tried by the learned Judge and the trial concluded in the conviction under all the counts of the charge. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel Mr. Shinde appearing for the appellant-accused has sub-mitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and erroneous. He submitted that there is no sufficient evidence against the appellant-ac-cused and yet on the basis of the suspicion the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused. The learned Counsel, at the out set, has challenged the proof of the fact of homi-cidal death of Chandrabhaga. He has sub-mitted that though Chandrabhaga was found dead in the house and complainant and the family members noticed the blood and blueish blackish marks around her neck, they did not report about the incident to the po-lice so also there was no post-mortem of body of Chandrabhaga. The learned Counsel ar-gued that in the absence of post-mortem or any medical report stating cause of death of Chandrabhaga, it was totally incorrect on the part of the learned trial Judge to hold the accused guilty for the offence of murder pun-ishable under section 302 of IPC. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the con-viction is based on a very week circumstan-tial evidence. The prosecution has also not proved motive. The accused has claimed the ownership of the ornament and this defence adopted by the accused ought to have been appreciated in the proper perspective by the learned trial Judge. On the conduct of the accused, he submitted the evidence of the witnesses especially PW 9 - Prakash Mahadev Dagade that accused was though talkative was quiet after the death of Chandrabhaga has, in fact, no meaning. On the contrary, PW 3 has given admission in the cross-ex-amination that accused has attended the fu-neral and cremation of Chandrabhaga so also he attended the post death rituals which were performed in the family. The learned Coun-sel has further submitted that there is no eye witness and the case standing on very shaky circumstances should not have been ended in holding accused guilty and the said judgment deserves to be set aside and ac-cused is to be acquitted. The learned Coun-sel has also claimed that the prosecution case is imaginary and by way of an after thought. The death occurred on 21/8/1990 and the FIR came to be filed for the first time on 26/ 8/1990 in the evening. Thus the case was fabricated against the accused