ASHOK RATAN SONAWNE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appellant/accused stood convicted in Sessions Case No. 16/2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 16/2/2015 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the prosecution had examined in all 11 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused and since the accused has taken plea of alibi, he has examined one person as the defence witness. PW3 - Rohini, who is the daughter-in-law of the accused and deceased, is eye-witness to the incident and PW4 - Vilas is the son of the deceased and accused who lodged the FIR, however, he had not seen the incident but relied upon the story that was told to him by his wife. No doubt, taking into consideration the testimony of PW1- Dr. Kapileshwar Maganlal Chaudhary- Medial Officer, who had conducted autopsy and had found in all 12 external injuries on the person of deceased and two internal injuries, it can be said that the opinion given by him regarding cause of death as "head injury - due to multiple injuries over head" would amount to homicidal death. However, while appreciating the evidence of PW2-Tarabai, the panch to the inquest panchanama, it can be seen that the inquest panchanama has been carried out at Civil Hospital and not at the spot. It is not the case of the prosecution that after the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital she was declared dead. The police had come to the spot and taking into consideration the photographs and the cross- examination of the other witnesses, it can be seen that the deceased had expired on the spot. Sec. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the inquest panchanama should be carried out at the spot. PW5 - Walmik is the panch to the seizure panchanama of murder weapon i.e. sickle, which has been referred to as 'dk;rk'. He has turned hostile and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said weapon was seized from the spot though the eye-witness is saying that it was at the spot. PW6 - Rajendra is the panch to the seizure of two chits which were allegedly produced by accused, however, it can be seen that the specimen signature and the handwriting of the accused along with the chits though referred for the handwriting expert's opinion, that opinion was never produced till the end of the trial. The said panchanama is also doubtful. It is said that the said panchanama has been carried out between 20:40 to 21:40 hrs on 15/10/2013.

(3.) It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the testimony of PW3 - Rohini is absolutely not reliable. She has deposed that in the past the accused was convicted by Sessions Court, Nashik, when it was alleged that the appellant had assaulted deceased - wife with knife. In her cross- examination, PW3 - Rohini has stated that she was not knowing about that incident personally, but had heard about it. PW4 - Vilas though stated in the FIR as well as testimony that his father was convicted by Nashik Court when he had allegedly assaulted his mother by knife by raising suspicion over her character, but, then he says that after undergoing that sentence he had joined the company of the deceased and the son about 4 to 5 years prior to the present incident. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not given any document to police to support his statement that his father was convicted. Even PW11 - Hemant Patil (Investigating Officer) has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not collected papers regarding previous conviction of the appellant. Under such circumstance, why the eye-witness wanted to say about the past of the father-in-law which was not within her personal knowledge? It can be seen that she was interested in suppressing the real fact. According to her, she did not pay attention to the quarrel that had taken place between the appellant and the deceased initially as, she thought that it was the routine affair but then, according to her, father-in-law had taken the sickle and after saying to her mother-in-law that he would kill her, had inflicted blow of the sickle over the head of deceased as well as on the neck. When blood started oozing from the head of her mother-in-law, she herself had fallen on the ground and became unconscious. After regaining the consciousness after sometime, she saw that her father-in-law had left the spot leaving the sickle near the neck of her mother-in-law. In her cross- examination, she has stated that she had regained consciousness within 10-15 minutes and by that time her husband and neighbors had come. Therefore, there is discrepancy between her examination-in-chief and cross. She has admitted in her cross- examination that one Yashwant Bhavre is her cousin brother and though she has denied, he was insisting the deceased to sell out the old house and also to take house from Kalpana - daughter of appellant and deceased, which was allotted to the appellant under Indira Awas Yojana. However, she admits that her husband was of the opinion that the house in which they were residing is dilapidated and, therefore, requires to be sold. Her husband was desirous of occupying the new house but the accused was opposing the said fact. Similar situations were given to PW4 - Vilas in his cross-examination but he has denied that.