BIRU VITHOBA SHEJAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 123 of 2004 has assailed the judgment and order of conviction passed by IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Pandharpur on 5th April, 2005 convicting him for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and on the first count sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer R.I for three months and on the second count sentencing him to suffer R.I for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of a fine to undergo R.I. for one month. The Appellant at the said Sessions Case was charged for committing murder of his wife Rukmini and son Dagadu by throttling them in a drain on 5th April, 2004 at about 19.00 to 19.30 hrs or there about in the vicinity of village Anakdhal. Tal. Sangola on the west side of Nazaremath to Rajuri Road, and for causing disappearance of the evidence of commission of the offence of murder of his wife and his son with the intent for screening himself from legal punishment and thereby committing the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The said Sessions case has emerged out of the charge-sheet for commission of such offences by the Appellant filed on 21st June, 2004 by P.I. Ayub Khan Mubarak Khan (PW-10) of Police Station Sangola. PW-10 had submitted the said charge-sheet against the appellant as a result of investigation of crime number 49 of 2004 under Sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code registered with the said police station by ASI Shaikh (PW-12) of said police station upon receipt of complaint dated 17.4.2004 of PW-1 Bhausaheb Babu Sejwai brought by the Head Constable from Kavathe Mahankal Police Station i.e. complaint recorded by PW-13 P.I. Mane of Kavathe Mahankal Police Station regarding murder committed by the appellant on 5.4.2004 of daughter Rukmini of aunt of PW-1 and her son Dagadu by throttling them in a drain at a distance one kilometer on the eastern side Rajuri. PW 13 had also drawn scene of offence panchnama of the spot of which he had received the clue after interrogating the appellant who had then accompanied PW1 when he had come for lodging the complaint. PW13 had also seized in all fourteen articles such as clothes of deceased Rukminibai and clothes of deceased Dagdu, hairs and bones of the deceased person under the said panchnama.

(3.) According to the prosecution, first marriage of Rukmini was unsuccessful and so also the wife of the appellant have passed away in 1999 by heart disease. At the behest of PW1, the marriage of Rukmini and the appellant was performed in the year 1999. However, since six months or thereabout prior to the lodging of the said complaint, appellant was doubting character of Rukmini and paternity of Dagdu. He was telling PW1 and many other persons that Dagdu was not born from him and was born out of illicit relation. Though attempted to convince regarding the same, such a thought had not vanished from the mind of the appellant.