UDHAV NAGORAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant / original convict for charge under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has impugned the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by which accused no.1 / appellant Udhav is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec. 498A of IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Sec. 323 of IPC and is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Sec. 506-II of IPC.

(2.) Appellant / Accused no.1 was charge-sheeted by Pathri Police Station, Tq.Pathri, Dist.Parbhani on accusation that, accused ill treated his wife Vandana. He had kept accused no.2 as mistress / concubine and was insisting that she would come to stay in his house. He used to beat Vandana for resisting and opposing the same. On intervening night of 11/7/2014 and 12/7/2014, on same count accused beat Vandana mercilessly. Again in the early hours of morning of 12/7/2014 he beat her saying that he has been asked by concubine to finish Vandana and thereafter, sprinkled kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. Children of deceased Vandana doused fire by pouring the water and she was taken to the hospital. From Rural Hospital, Pathri, she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Parbhani and there while undergoing treatment, deceased Vandana gave two dying declarations blaming husband Udhav for the burns. On the strength of her statements, FIR was lodged and PW13 Chhatrabhooj, who was then posted at Pathri Taluka Police Station, carried out investigation and after gathering sufficient evidence, accused came to be charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Ss. 498A, 323, 302, 506-II of IPC and case came to be committed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, who while conducting trial, appreciated oral and documentary evidence on behalf of prosecution and finally convicted accused no.1 as stated above.

(3.) Now by invoking Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, original accused no.1 is taking exception to the said judgment of conviction by raising various grounds raised the appeal memo.