BHAUSAHEB GULABCHAND SONAWANE (BHIL) Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant / accused has challenged his conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court ") in Sessions Case No. 86/2014 on 18/11/2014 for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 447, 394 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C. "), in the instant appeal. The learned trial Court has convicted the appellant / accused in the following manner:

(2.) One Latabai, who is deceased in the instant case, was wife of one Murlidhar Supdu Patil i.e. the informant in this case. Both of them are having one daughter namely Mamta, aged about 6 years. Informant Murlidhar is having agricultural land at village Sukwad. Deceased Latabai was having her cell phone of Nokia company black in colour, bearing No. 8698330154. On 4/1/2014 informant Murlidhar was supervising the work of cattle shed which was being done by the labourers. At about 12.00 noon Latabai told him that she was going to feld for fetching the cotton crop and also for taking grass for the cattle. At the relevant time daughter Mamta was at home. At about 5.00 p.m. informant Murlidhar came home after milking his buffalo and asked Mamta to tell her mother to prepare tea for him. When Mamta told that Latabai had not come from the feld by that time, he made call to Latabai from his cell phone, but the cell phone of Latabai was found switched off. Therefore, Murlidhar alongwith daughter Mamta went to his feld on motorcycle to see Latabai. After reaching there he gave call to Latabai by blowing horn of the motorcycle. However, Latabai did not respond. Hence, he asked one Bajirao Ragho Patil about Latabai and at that time Bajirao told him that she must have gone to home by that time. Thereafter informant Murlidhar went in the crop of cotton which was having height of 5.5. ft. He saw the cotton crop and soil in disturbed condition just ahead of one spot. When he went further, he saw his wife Latabai lying on the ground and the soil in the feld was wet due to raining. When he went close to his wife, he noticed bleeding injuries on her face, lips, hand and all over the body. One stone and stick were also lying there having blood stains thereon. The handkerchief of Latabai was also lying there and it was also stained by blood. Informant Murlidhar raised shouts and on hearing the same, Bajirao Patil as well as daughter Mamta rushed there. Latabai was dead at the relevant time, and therefore, Murlidhar suspected that somebody must have killed her. At the time of incident Latabai had worn pink colour saree, pink colour blouse and pink colour petticoat. Informant Murlidhar also found that certain gold ornaments of Latabai were missing. He also did not fnd mobile handset of Latabai with her. Therefore, he suspected that the same might have stolen by the person who had killed Latabai. Then informant Murlidhar lodged complaint of the incident to Police Station, Songir vide Exh.25.

(3.) On the next day i.e. on 5/1/2014 informant Murlidhar came to know from his brother Ramesh Supdu Patil that when Ramesh was passing by his feld while grazing his buffalo, at about 11.30 a.m. the appellant/accused was found sitting on one Neem tree. When Ramesh asked him what the appellant was doing there, the appellant told him that he was cutting certain branches of that tree for fre-wood. Further, the informant Murlidhar also came to know from his nephew Anil Bhaidas Patil that he had seen the appellant on the day of incident at about 2.30 p.m. in the village itself and at that time the appellant was having fresh scratch marks and abrasions on his face. It was also found that the appellant was missing from the village. As such, doubt of Murlidhar got confrmed, and therefore, he under the supplementary statement recorded by the Investigating Offcer on 5/1/2014, made accusation against the appellant for committing murder of his wife.