RAMKISAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Appeal has been filed by original accused who has been held guilty of committing offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.17 of 2015 on 19/5/2017. The appellant - accused has been convicted for committing murder of his wife.

(2.) Before we proceed, the facts which are admitted on record, are that the present appellant - accused got married to Sunita who was the sister of informant PW-1 Bhaurao Baban Khedkar and daughter of PW-3 Baban Nana Khedkar. Their marriage had taken place in 2006. They are blessed with two sons and one daughter, namely, Tirtharaj - aged 7 years, Adarsh - aged 5 years and Tanuja - aged 1 year. Informant PW-1 Bhaurao and father PW-3 Baban are resident of Kekat-Jalgaon, whereas appellant is resident of Darade Vasti, Kekat Jalgaon, Taluka- Paithan, District-Jalgaon.

(3.) The prosecution has come with the case that informant PW-1 Bhaurao lodged report on 24/9/2014 stating that after the marriage of Sunita with accused in 2006, till their eldest son Tirathraj became seven years, there was no dispute in the marital life of Sunita. Thereafter the dispute started on some domestic counts. Sunita used to tell about the harassment to her parents and brothers. Though the husband and his relatives were requested not to harass Sunita, as there was no change in their behaviour, Sunita lodged a complaint with Women's Grievance Redressal Forum attached to the Office of District Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad. The authority thereof called Sunita and her parents and also the husband's side for taking statements. Since the date of said complaint, Sunita was residing with her father for about 5 to 6 months. The authority then resolved the dispute by giving advise. After the compromise, Sunita went to cohabit with her husband but Sunita and her husband started residing in the house in their field, separately from the parents-in-law. In the meantime, Adarsh and Tanuja were born. However, later on Sunita disclosed that the accused has become addicted to liquor and was blaming her on the count that she has separated him from his parents and as to why she has made complaint with the Police. He used to give her threat to kill and used to assault her. Thereafter again the husband was advised but there was no change in the behaviour. Accused gave phone call to elder brother of deceased on 23/9/2014 stating that there was snake bite to Sunita and she has become serious, and they were in the process of shifting Sunita to the hospital at Aurangabad in the vehicle belonging to one Datta Horshil. Accused asked elder brother of the deceased to arrange an amount of Rs.10,000.00 and be ready. After they had collected the amount, when younger brother Dnyaneshwar gave phone call to the accused and asked how Sunita was, he told that she has expired and they are returning. Hearing that, three brothers of the deceased, their other relatives went to Government Hospital, Pachod around 11.00 p.m. on 23/9/2014. When inquiry was made, they came to know that Sunita was taken to Aurangabad. As accused was returning from Aurangabad, they waited near the Petrol Pump at Pachod. When vehicle came there, the accused did not stop the vehicle at Pachod and started to go ahead. At that time informant Bhaurao and others chased the said vehicle from the vehicle belonging to one Dhananjay Magar. They stopped that vehicle around 1.30 a.m. of 24/9/2014. They found accused, his father and uncle in the vehicle. When they watched the dead body of Sunita, they found that blood had come out of her mouth and dried. They asked accused as to how Sunita has expired. Accused told that snake has taken bite. But they could not see the bite marks of the snake on the body of Sunita and therefore, Bhaurao gave intimation to Police on phone and informed the incident. Thereupon Pachod Police came to the spot and took the vehicle with dead body in their custody and brought the dead body to Government Hospital. After the inquest panchnama was drawn and postmortem was performed, it was revealed that Sunita expired due to head injury and therefore, Bhaurao lodged First Information Report (for short "FIR") vide Crime No.160 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against in all five persons including the present appellant.