VIRSINGH ANWARSING NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the commission of an offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE appellant was married to Laxmi about 18 months prior to February 1988. The couple was living at the house of the father of the appellant at Village Ghatani, Taluka Akkalkuwa, District Dhule. On 18-2-1988, the parents of the appellant were not at home and Laxmi was in the kitchen. The sound of a gun shot in the kitchen attracted the attention of P. W. 3 Narpatsing, who is the Police Patil of the village and certain others. When they came running, they saw Laxmi lying dead with a gun shot injury on the left mastoid region. The appellant was standing close by and near her feet lay the gun. The appellant was taken to the Akkalkuwa Police Station which place was reached after midnight. P. S. I. Patil of the said Police Station recorded a statement of the appellant which is inadmissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act, and, for which reason, we shall not refer to it at all. Laxmis corpse was sent to the Medical Officer at the Primary Health Centre, Akkalkuwa. He found the injury mentioned above and opined that the said injury was ante-mortem. In Medical Officer Dr. Ranes notes, appears the opinion that the injury could not have been self inflicted, having regard to the position of the injury and the height of Laxmi. The wound had an entry point but not an exit point. In due course, a charge-sheet ascribing to the appellant the commission of offences punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 as lodged. The Magisterial enquiry over, the appellant was committed to stand trial in the Sessions Court at Dhule.

(3.) THE appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was that he was not at home when the tragedy took place. This was because he had gone out to a shop to purchase bidis. When he returned from there, he saw Laxmi lying with a wound on her head and a gun near her feet. For no reason at all, he had been implicated in the killing of Laxmi. P. W. 3 was a relation of his father and had demanded a share in the property some six months prior to 18-2-1988. The demand not having been acceded to, had left behind a trail of bitterness in the mind of Narpatsing. That is why he had concocted a case of the appellant having killed Laxmi.