RAJU @ ALIX Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17th June, 2008 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 533/2005 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "accused") for offence punishable u/s. 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 800/-,in default, S.I. for one month.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Lokchand Meshram (PW6) was the father of deceased-Annapurna. Some time in June 1994, Annapurna got married with one Sunil Dhongde. Since the couple could not pull on well, Annapurna married with Suresh Telmore for the second time. Since the said marriage too did not work out, she got married with the accused for the third time. Out of the said wedlock, Annapurna begotten three children. It is the case of the prosecution that initially, the accused treated her well, however thereafter, he used to suspect her fidelity. The parents of the accused tried to persuade him to behave properly, but in vain. The accused used to beat Annapurna even in the presence of her parents. On 17.7.2005 at about 8.00 pm, it is the case of the prosecution that Annapurna consumed poisonous substance. She was admitted in the Medical Hospital at 20.45 hours. PW10-ASI Anandrao Gawai recorded the statement of Annnapurna vide Exh. 47, stating that as the accused used to suspect her character and beat her, she consumed poison. On 17.7.2005 itself at about 2.15 am, PW13-Ramesh Mendhe issued a requisition to the Medical Officer for issuing fitness certificate to give statement. At that time, the Medical Officer Dr (Mrs) Ganvir opined that the patient was not in a fit condition to give her statement. Accordingly, PW13 made a station diary entry at Exh.33 at 9.35am. On 18.7.2005 at about 4.00 am, Annapurna succumbed to death and, therefore, AD No. 68/2005 was registered. PW7- Prabhakar Wankhede, then, visited the place of incident and recorded the spot panchnama (Exh.10).

(3.) Shri Sumit G.Joshi, learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge has not assessed the case of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective inasmuch as it is not proved by the prosecution that deceased- Annapurna died a suicidal death by consuming insecticide. It is submitted that the PM report does not reveal the cause of death. The viscera in respect of the stomach content was sent to CA Office, however, no CA report is placed on record in respect of the contents found in the stomach of deceased-Annapura. He, therefore, submitted that the cause of death is not proved by the prosecution and therefore there is no question of any abetment caused by the accused for commission of suicide by Annapurna. He further submitted that even the dying declaration which is recorded by PW- 13 Head constable does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as it is not proved by the prosecution that at the relevant time, deceased was mentally and physically fit to give her statement. He submitted that there is no endorsement on record of the Medical Officer obtained by the police in order to prove the fitness of Annapurna to give her statement. He further submitted that even the neighbourers have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. So also, the testimony of the parents and relatives of deceased- Annnapurna does not throw any light on the aspect of the alleged ill-treatment meted out at the hands of the accused, so much as so that Annnapurna was constrained to take the extreme step. In these circumstances, he submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the accused needs acquittal.