LAXMAN HARLAL RATHOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were tried for murder of the newly born child delivered by appellant Chandrakala as also for concealment 9f birth of the said newly born child by secret disposal of the dead body, as also for causing disappearance of the evidence of the offence of murder u/ss. 302, 318. 201 nw. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution has, in all examined sixteen witnesses in support on he said charges. The trial court held both the appellants guilty for the murder u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Laxman was also held guilty u/ss. 318 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code but appellant chandrakala was acquitted of the said charges. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The predetention sentence of the appellants were set on in terms of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants challenge their conviction and sentence, in this appeal.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that appellant Chandrakala came to the house of appellant Laxman where she delivered a female child. Said child was murdered by forcibly inserting cotton pieces in her mouth. Appellant Laxman took the child for burying her in the Held but one Sanjay Lad saw him while burying the child on the common dhura of the fields of Boodke. Pawar and Nagpure. In fact, Padmakar Rakhunde and Fakira Ingle had seen appellant. Laxman burying the child on the common dhura of the fields of Booke. Pawar and Nagpure upon which they took objection and appellant Laxman took, that body and buried on the dhura of Held of Sanjay Lad who also took objection to it, upon which appellant Laxman took out the dead body of the child from the dhura of the field of Sanjay Lad. Sanjay Lad brought appellant Laxman along with dead body of the female child to the Police Station and lodged report on 13. 10. 1997. Post mortem on the dead body of the child was carried out and the doctor found that the child was born alive and was gagged to death. Before the trial Court the stand taken was that appellant Chandrakala had delivered a still born child on account of which the child was buried in the Held.