STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GULAB DATTU PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, by judgment and order dtd. 3/5/2003, has acquitted Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 302, 364 and 201 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC "). The State of Maharashtra is in appeal against the said judgment and order acquitting the Respondents in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2002. The Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the Prosecution did not establish the chain of circumstances so as to implicate the Respondents in the crimes.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 (originally Accused No. 1) along with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (originally Accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively) were arrested for killing Shri. Hari Pandurang Jadhav (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased "). The deceased was wellknown colloquially as a "panadia, " who is a person adept at locating underground water sources. He was also the father of Smt. Asha Rani (P.W. 13), to whom the Respondent No. 2 was married i.e., he was the father-in-law of the Respondent No. 2.

(3.) It appears that the Respondent No. 2 and his family mistreated Smt. Asha Rani (P.W. 13). Complaints were filed by Smt. Asha Rani against the Respondent No. 2 in the local police station for the said mistreatment. She had also filed a petition in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tasgaon, seeking maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "CrPC "). She used to attend the hearings in respect of the proceedings in the Tasgaon Court along with her father (the deceased). Due to the litigation initiated by Smt. Asha Rani, Respondent No. 2 purportedly used to threaten to kill Smt. Asha Rani and the deceased. The Prosecution has alleged that the Respondents were involved in a criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased. According to the Prosecution, Respondent No. 2 hired Respondent No. 1 through Respondent No. 3 to kill the deceased and paid an amount of Rs.20,000.00 for the said contract killing.