MUKESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.194 of 2010, thereby recording guilt and conviction of appellant for offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), convict has preferred instant appeal.

(2.) Informant's daughter Madhuri was married to appellant on 20/1/2010. On the strength of FIR lodged by PW1 Bhagwan Govinda Patil, father of deceased and informant, crime was registered for offence under Ss. 302, 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC against husband and parents-in-laws. Informant alleged that after marriage of his deceased daughter with Mukesh (appellant), she was treated properly for barely 15 days. Thereafter, illtreatment began. She was beaten and kept starved for failing to bring articles like fridge, gas-stove and cooler. Such ill-treatment mated out to her by accused persons was promptly informed by her to informant. Informant alleged that parents-in-law used to instigate husband, who in turn used to abuse and beat her. There were taunting and comments about not cooking properly.

(3.) The sum and substance of the arguments made by learned Counsel for appellant is that apparently it is a false implication. There is no cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Taking us through the prosecution evidence, it is submitted that there is no direct eye witness account and case of prosecution is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. According to him, only circumstance relied by prosecution is last seen together but said circumstance is also not cogently and firmly proved. Taking us through the evidence of PW4 Eknath and PW5 Jaywantabai, it is submitted that these witnesses are examined for proving circumstance of last seen together, however, according to him, the answers given by these witnesses in crossexamination clearly suggest that their evidence is not sufficient to hold circumstance of last seen together as proved. That their testimonies are full of omissions and contradictions. He would submit that infact PW4 Eknath, landlord has admitted that he never heard quarrel or dispute between husband and wife. Therefore, there was no motive or intention and at this point learned Counsel would submit that case being based on circumstantial evidence, motive was expected to be proved by prosecution, however, it failed to do so. He further submitted that there is no independent witness who had seen appellant in company of his wife. For all above reasons, he submits that with such quality of evidence, learned trial Court ought not to have accepted the case of prosecution as proved and having erred by accepting the case, it is his submission that his appeal deserves to be allowed.