MALLAPPA CHANAPPA NIDONI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 123 of 2005, convicting him for committing the murder of his wife - Kalavati and causing disappearance of the evidence of said murder for screening himself from legal punishment and on the first count sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months and on second count to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. According to the prosecution, the appellant along with wife-deceased Kalavati and children PW-1 Tukaram, PW-3 Smt. Dhannakka and Parshuram, were residing at Borial Vasti. Kalavati and other ladies were working as agricultural labours in the field of one Siddrayya Birajdar, at some distance away towards the north side of Borial Vasti. Birajdar was residing along with his family at the same place.

(2.) The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. framed against him by the Court of Sessions after the case was committed to the said Court by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jat.

(3.) The prosecution in addition to the above referred four witnesses additionally examined seven witnesses i.e. PW-10 Gangadhar Mordi, neighbour of the parents of deceased; panch PW-4 Kashinath for seizure panchanama of Axe produced by PW-3, seizure panchanama regarding blood stained clothes of appellant and memorandum discovery and seizure panchanama of concealed blood stained mat produced by the appellant; PW-5 Rajendra and PW-8 Smt. Mahananda panchas for inquest panchanama; PW-6 Daryappa and PW-9 Vitthal panchas for spot panchanama. The prosecution also examined PW-7 Dr. Satish Wable from Primary Health Centre, Madgayal regarding autopsy performed by him upon the corpse of the deceased and preparing postmortem Notes Exh. 28. Out of the said witnesses, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 having not supported the prosecution at the trial, the learned A.P.P. was required to cross-examine them. The defence of the appellant was that of total denial. He claims of being falsely implicated by the police.