ANANDA @ SACHIN MAHADEO KADAM Vs. SATEA OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants, who are convicted by the learned Sessions Court for the offences punishable u/s. 304B r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months each, have challenged the said conviction and sentence. Besides the above conviction and sentence, they were also convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 498A r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 3 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each. However, the sentence imposed was directed to run concurrently with the major punishment. The appellants are son and mother respectively. They were charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC as well as u/s. 304 r/w. 34 of the IPC and u/s. 428 r/w. 34 of the IPC on the following allegations:

(2.) In this situation, the incident occurred on 14/02/2012. P.W. No. 2 Nanda filed a report at Exh. 20. She has further reported that on that day, at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning, appellant No. 1 Sachin made a phone call and told that at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning, deceased Sonali had left the house and he made inquiry as to whether deceased Sonali has come to the parental house. In the circumstances, appellant No. 1 as well as P.W. No. 3 Rajendra i.e. the brother of the deceased started search of missing Sonali. At about 2 p.m. in the noon again, the phone call from appellant No. 1 Sachin was received by Sahdeo Kadam i.e. the uncle of the appellant No. 1. It was informed that Sonali was admitted in the Civil Hospital of Ahmednagar. Therefore at about 3.00 p.m. in the noon, P.W. No. 2 Nanda went to Ahmednagar alongwith other relatives. At that time, they found that the deceased was taking treatment. A poison was suspected as the smell of the same was coming from her mouth. She was conscious. In the circumstances, when P.W. No. 2 Nanda as well as other relatives inquired with her, at that time, she told that for demand of remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- and other complaints as detailed supra, in the morning at about 4.00 a.m., at the matrimonial house of Nepti, both the appellants told the deceased that they would finish her. In the circumstances, appellant No. 2 Parvati, the mother in law caught hold the hands of the deceased while appellant No. 2 Sachin forcibly administered poison to her. They also threatened that in case the incident is narrated by the deceased to anybody, they would not allow the deceased to cohabit with them. Thereafter she was taken by a vehicle and was left at some other place and was ultimately admitted to the hospital. After this narration, the deceased became un-conscious. Ultimately, she died in the same night at about 11.25 p.m. On these allegations, FIR at Exh. 20 came to be filed.

(3.) P.W. No. 8 P.S.I. Sachin Sitaram Sanap has carried the investigation in the crime that was registered on the basis of said FIR. He visited the house of the appellants and carried spot panchnama in presence of the panchas. Thereafter, he also recorded the statements of neighbouring persons. He recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses including statement of P.W. No. 3 Rajendra and P.W. No. 4 Rajana Bhingardive who claimed that she was present at the time of recording of oral dying declaration of deceased to her mother. The Medical Officer has already carried post mortem examination over the dead body and reserved the cause of death since no external injuries were found on the dead body. The viscera was sent by the Investigating Officer to the Chemical Analyser at Nashik. So also another part of the viscera was sent by the Investigating Officer to B.J. Medical College, Pune for histopathological report. The Chemical Analyser's report however did not confirm that any poisonous substance was found in the viscera. Histopathological report was also not useful in this regard. Further the Investigating Officer called the report in respect of mobile number of the appellant No. 1 as well as of the complainant. Those call details were collected and ultimately the charge sheet came to be filed.