TATYASAHEB LIMBRAJ PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 6-3-2004 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, convicting the Appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC.

(2.) The incident of murder has taken place on 26-4-2003 at Barshi, District Solapur in the morning at 6.30 to 7.00 a.m. Victim Renuka Tatyasaheb Patil was the wife of the Appellant. The Appellant and the Victim got married on 6-2-2003, hardly 2- 1/2 months prior to the incident. At the time of marriage two tolas of gold, some utensils and an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of dowry was given to the Appellant. As per the case of the prosecution, the Appellant and the victim had a smooth married life just for one month, but thereafter a demand of Rs.1 lac was made by the Appellant and the said demand of Rs.1 lac could not be fulfilled by the father P.W.-1 of the victim or her relatives. Deceased Renuka had complained to her father P.W.-1 and brother P.W.-6 about the demand of Rs.1 lac made by her husband. Immediately, after the marriage, on the festival of Gudipadwa, she had visited her maiden home and at that time she voiced about the said demand. Thereafter telephonically she has communicated about the harassment and assault at the hands of the Appellant, to her brother. On 26-4-2003, the victim's father was informed on telephone about the death of his daughter, therefore, he along with his relatives and some villagers rushed to the house of his daughter where they found that she was burnt and was dead. P.W.1- the father of the Victim lodged an FIR and the offence under Section 498A, 302 and 201 was registered at C.R. No.58 of 2003 at Barshi Police Station against the Appellant. The police carried out the investigation. The postmortem was performed and the cause of death was declared as Asphyxia due to throttling. In the course of investigation, the police drew panchanamas on the same date and the statements of the witnesses were recorded within the couple of days. Police sent the articles to C.A. and obtained report. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed. This being a case of the murder, it was committed to the Court of Session and charges under the relevant sections was framed accordingly. The trial was conducted before the Sessions Judge and was concluded in the conviction. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and Order the present Appeal is filed by the Accused.

(3.) The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has raised the challenge mainly on the ground that there is no eye witness and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence and motive is also not established. The motive brought on record by the prosecution is an after thought. How and in what manner the victim has died is not proved by the prosecution and the Learned Sessions Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence of witnesses on the point of the incident. The evidence of the police witness P.W. 7, 8, 9 & 10 is inconsistent and ought not to have been relied. The learned Counsel argued that the prosecution has brought a very weak evidence on the point of motive that there was a demand of Rs.1 lac by the Appellant-Accused and the victim has complained about the said demand and the harassment including assault at the hands of the Accused, to her family members i.e. P.W 1 her father and P.W.6 her brother. He has submitted that in a short span of their married life i.e 2- 1/2 months, they had smooth married life for a month and as per the prosecution, thereafter the demand was made. Thus, the period of harassment and demand was very short i.e. hardly a month and it appears improbable. He further pointed out that in the evidence of P.W.6, he had stated that a phone call was made by the victim in the house of PW-3 who was their neighbour. At that time according to the prosecution the witness was informed that her husband has given her a threat that if the amount of Rs.1 lac was not paid then there would be a serious consequence. The Leaned Counsel submitted that if this would have been the position, then it was natural on the part of the family members to lodge a complaint and make inquiry about the said demand. However, no such complaint of harassment and demand was made by the family members to the police against the Appellant. The Learned Counsel pointed out that in the cross- examination of P.W.-1-father of the victim has given admission that he decided to lodge a complaint against the Appellant only when he was informed about the cause of death of his daughter was Asphyxia due to throttling. The Learned Counsel argued on the background of the communication of harassment and demand of Rs.1 lac. The appellant was a prime suspect and P.W.-1ought to have been lodged complaint against the Appellant, as soon as they reached to the house of the daughter. Why father P.W.-1 waited to lodge complaint till postmortem report was known P.W.-3 at whose residence telephone call of the victim about the harassment was received by P.W-6, did not say a word about such telephone call and conversation between the victim and P.W.-6 and, therefore, the story of the demand of Rs.1 lac and so also the communication in respect of the harassment or assault at the hands of the Accused to the victim, false and cooked up.