DADA SHIVRAM MESHRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were charged under sections 342 and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of Rani who was a child, aged about 2 and half years. The trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, i/d to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month for an offence under section 342 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court further convicted the appellant No. 3 for an offence punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, i/d to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Similarly, the trial Court convicted the appellants 1 and 2 for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, i/d to suffer further imprisonment for nine months. Sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 168 of 96 on 28-11-1999. The appellants No. 1 to 3 are original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and for the sake of convenience, there are hereinafter referred to as original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Accused No. 1 is the husband of accused No. 2. Accused No. 3 was a teacher teaching in a school. However, he left the job and thereafter was known as Daulatbaba and it is alleged by the prosecution that he was doing sorcery and used to perform black magic and had number of followers. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were ardent followers of accused No. 3.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had three children one son and two daughters and at the time of the alleged incident, accused No. 2 was in advanced stage of her pregnancy. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused No. 3 used to visit the residence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and on one occasion, has performed certain rituals in their house. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused No. 3 had told accused Nos. 1 and 2 that their last child Rani who was 2 years old will bring ill-luck to them and, therefore, it was necessary to perform certain rituals. It is further alleged that accused No. 3 had warned accused Nos. 1 and 2 to get Rani out of his sight whenever he had visited the residence. It is alleged by the prosecution that as a result of this command which was given by accused No. 3, accused Nos. 1 and 2 confined their child Rani in a bath room which admeasuring 3. 4 x 4. 4 and did not give food or water to the child at the behest of accused No. 3 as a result of which child Rani died of starvation. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to write various letters to accused No. 3 informing him about their plight and about the illness suffered by all the members of family and used to implore him to suggest remedy or a panacea to cure all illness of the family, it is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 3 had also given replies to the said letters from time to time. It is the case of the prosecution that the sons of the landlord had seen that child Rani was kept in captivity in bathroom and was not given food and water and a complaint was made to the police by the said landlord on 8-8-1996, yet no action was taken by the police. The said landlord found that the child had expired and had seen the dead body in the bathroom and a complaint was lodged in the Police Station. Police recorded statements of witnesses. They carried out panchanama and the Investigating Officer was of the view that prima facie case was made out against the accused and, therefore, charge-sheet was filed against the accused under sections 342, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court framed charge under sections 342, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge.

(3.) THE trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the accused and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine on them, as aforesaid. The accused are challenging the said judgment and order of the trial Court in this appeal.