AALU RATAN PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) i.d. to suffer R.I. for three years; He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2004 by 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon by Judgment and Order dated 1/12/2005. Hence, this appeal. Such of the facts which are necessary for decision of the appeal are as follows:

(2.) P.W. 1 Vimalbai More is the sister of deceased Vansabai. She has deposed before the Court that Vansabai had begotten one son and one daughter from her first marriage. Both the children were staying with P.W. 1. Vansabai was married to the accused three years prior to the incident. Vansabai had begotten one son and one daughter from the said wedlock. The son is 2 years old and the daughter was 5 months old. According to her, both the sisters visited their maternal house at about same time, so that they could stay together. Vansabai had disclosed to P.W. 1 that she was ill-treated by her husband. Vansabai had also expressed an apprehension that some day he may kill her. However, P.W. 1 thought that the quarrel was a usual affair between the husband and wife and therefore, she did not intervene. According to P.W. 1, the employer of the accused visited her and informed her that accused had killed her sister at midnight. Since it was the festival of Nagpanchami, mother of P.W. 1 was also with her. Raju Pardeshi i.e. owner of agricultural land had further informed that the accused had thrown his daughter aged 5 months in a dry well. P.W. 1 and her mother visited the spot on the next day in the morning. She has further stated that the accused was also prosecuted for killing his first wife. However, she was not aware of the Judgment of the said prosecution. It is elicited in the cross-examination that prior to her marriage with the accused Vansabai was first married with Harshan Naik. Thereafter, she was married to Damu Naik. She was divorced by Damu. Thereafter, she was married to the accused i.e. the present appellant. P.W. 1 has given an evasive answer to the suggestion that Vansabai was in the habit of consuming alcohol. The omission is elicited in the cross-examination in respect of meeting of their sisters at their maternal home.

(3.) P.W. 2 Ukha Davre, P.W. 3 Gufran Ahmed Subhan Ahmed, P.W. 4 Rahemutta Mohd. Amin are declared hostile by the prosecution.