LAWS(BOM)-2001-4-23

SAMPAT MAHADEO TODKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On April 26, 2001
SAMPAT MAHADEO TODKAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant (Original Accused) has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30/9/1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, thereby convicting the Appellant for the offences punishable under Section 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/-,in default rigorous imprisonment for three months, and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months, respectively, for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) DECEASED Maya was the youngest daughter of Krishna and Radhabai Shinde, residents of Bombay. Maya was brought up in Bombay and was educated upto S. S. C. Maya was given in marriage to the Appellant and the marriage took place on 15/6/1982. After marriage, Maya started residing in her matrimonial home with the Appellant at village Pusegaon. The Appellant resided with his brothers Hemant and Dattatraya, their parents, wives and children in the family house at Pusegaon. The Appellant served as Laboratory Assistant in Hanumangiri High School, Pusegaon. It appears that the Appellant and his wife deceased Maya did not pull on together well. The couple started living in rented house. Manukabai Tupe (PW No. 4), resident of village Kumthe, is the aunt of the deceased Maya. She has gone once to the matrimonial home of the deceased Maya at Pusegaon to bring Maya to her house for the celebration of the Sankrant festival. During the visit of Manukabai (PW No. 4) to the matrimonial home of the deceased Maya, she was told that the Appellant illtreated her. Manukabai desired to take Maya to her house, to which the Appellant refused.

(3.) THIS appeal was taken up for hearing by this Court on 20/12/2000. The Appellant was absent. Notice was issued to the Appellant. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 13. 3. 2001. On that day also, none appeared despite service of notice on the Appellant. THIS Court, therefore, decided to dispose of the matter on merits.