GANESH BHAU SONAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal the appellant ( the accused for short) takes exception to judgment and order dated 13 th February, 2007 passed by Sessions Court at Sewree in Sessions Case No. 222/2006 by which the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for one month and to suffer R.I. For seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one month simple imprisonment, respectively. The accused has been convicted for causing murder of his aunt Laxmibai B. Narayankar on 17 th December, 2005.

(2.) Briefly, the prosecution case is as under: Deceased Laxmibai Narayankar was residing alone at Bungalow named as Sai Krupa , at Model Town, Mulund West. Her daughter PW1 Meena Ramesh Darvesh was residing at Koparkhairane, New Mumbai. Baburam the husband of Laxmibai expired in 2001 and thereafter Laxmibai started residing alone in the said bungalow. Devidas - the son of deceased was residing at Sion, Chembur with his family members. Meena used to visit her mother two or three times in a month and Devidas used to meet her once in a month. Therefore, one key of the bungalow of her mother was with Meena and another key was with Devidas. On 17/12/05 Shubharta the daughter of Meena made phone call to Laxmibai at about 6.30 hours and she had talk with Laxmibai. At about 7.00 p.m. Meena gave a call to her mother but there was no response from Laxmibai. Thereafter, she tried to contact her mother on mobile but there was no response. Therefore, she made phone call to her brother to enquire whether Laxmibai had come to his house but he replied in the negative. On the same day at ab out 11.00 p.m. Meena alongwith her son Sagar, nephew Sachin proceeded in Indica car and reached at the bungalow of her month at about 11.30 p.m. They noticed that the entrance gate was locked and there was no light in the bungalow. Since she had not taken the key of the bungalow, she went to her brother s house. She took the key of the bungalow from her brother and came alongwith her brother back to the Bungalow of her mother at about 1.00 a.m. on 18/12/05. Devidas opened the lock and all of them entered the house and after switching on the light, they could not find Laxmibai. Meena noticed that bathroom was closed from outside. She opened the latch of the bathroom and saw her mother Laxmibai lying in injured condition with injuries on her neck and chin caused by sharp weapon. She raised shout whereupon her brother, son and nephew came near the bathroom and saw Laxmibai. They informed Tony Agarwal who made phone call to the police who came on the spot. She also noticed that her mother did not have gold chain and four bangles which Laxmibai was normally wearing. She lodged report at Mulund police station which was registered under Sections 302 and 397 of IPC against an unknown person. The investigation was carried out and spot punchnama Exhibit 17 and seizure panchanama (Exhibit 18) of the clothes of the deceased were conducted. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused was suspected to be involved in the commission of the crime and as such he was arrested on 22 nd December, 2005 under arrest punchanama Exhibit 13. On 23 rd December, 2005 the accused while in police custody made a disclosure statement to show the shop of the Marwadi whom he had sold ornaments of deceased Laxmibai. Accordingly, Memorandum Exhibt 32 was recorded and the accused led the police and panchas to Vikhroli to the shop of Mr. Jain named Mahavir Jewellers where Dharamchand Jain disclosed that the accused had sold four bangles and one gold chain and the same were produced. They were seized under recovery panchnama Exhibit 33. The gold ornaments seized were shown to PW1 Meena who identified the same under Panchnama Exhibit 34. Thereafter, the accused also showed his willingness to show the place where he had thrown iron Khanjeer used in the commission of the offence and clothes worn by him. Accordingly, Memorandum Exhibit 22 was recorded and consequent to disclosure statement the Khanjir was recovered near the heap of garbage. The accused also took out one plastic bag from inside the two cement roof sheet in which there was one yellow colour full sh irt and one ash colour full pant. In the backside of pant pocket one iron key was found. The same were seized under Recovery Panchnama Exhibit 23. On 24 th December, 2005 identification parade was held by PW8 Jagannath Mule Special Executive Officer in which PW7 Ramlal Kahar who was working in the Shaswat bungalow which was just opposite to the bungalow of deceased Laxmibai. Ramlal who claimed to have seen the accused near the gate of the bungalow on 17 th December, 2005, at about 12 o clock noon, identified the accused. The muddemal articles were sent for analysis to FSL, Mumbai. The Investigating Officer also collected the receipt book of Mahavir Jewellers Exhibit 25. After completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 302 and 397 of IPC. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Sewree. In Sessions Case No. 222/2006 the charge under Sections 302 and 397 was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) To prove the case against accused the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. The defence of the accused was of total denial. The learned Session Judge upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution held the accused guilty under both Sections and sentenced him as above. Insofar as the disposal of the property is concerned, the learned Judge ordered that same be preserved till the appeal was disposed of.