JAGANNATH TRIMBAK LABADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel and learned A.P.P. The appeal is is admitted on 14.9.1998. The Appellant questions conviction recorded for an offense under Sections 498 A and 306 of IPC in Sessions Case No. 297/1996, dt.31.8.1998, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon.

(2.) The matrimonial relations of the accused applicant with deceased Mankarna getting married on 13.2.1996, six months prior to the incident dt.8.7.1996 are not in controversy. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the dying declarations of the victim Mankarna (Exhs. 22 and 27) in unmistakable terms, she has informed the events as an accidental burns that she has suffered, it should have been believed. The learned Judge erred in holding that death of Mankarna is a case of suicide and then holding Appellant/accused abated commission of suicide. Learned Judge erred in not believing evidence of Kakasaheb Ahilaji Pawar, PW No. 1, a neighbour who did not support the prosecution. The story and the evidence of the close relatives of Mankarna is afterthought and should not have been believed. No presumption could have been raised in terms of Section 113 of Indian Evidence Act.

(3.) With the assistance of learned Counsel and learned A.P.P., evidence of each of the witness is read. Kakasaheb Ahilaji Pawar (PW No. 1), as stated earlier, is neighbour, submits that the incident has taken place in Gaikwad Vasti. While Mankarna had come to him in a burnt condition, her apparels were burnt, she informed him of having received burns due to flaring up of stove. She desired medical assistance. He disputed prosecution case. From his Police statement marked portion "A" was pointed to him wherein he had implicated the accused. He disputed it. Said portion "A" has not been established/proved through the evidence of investigating officer.