NARAYAN LAXMAN MHATRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by the Sessions Judge, Kulaba, Alibag, on a charge of murdering his own wife Shakuntala on February 22, 1978. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated October 17, 1978, found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant has challenged his conviction in this appeal.

(2.) There is no direct evidence against the accused. The prosecution rests its case on the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to his father-in-law, Gopinath Krishna Thakur, coupled with the circumstance that there was motive for the accused to have his wife. The prosecution has led evidence about motive which has been accepted by the learned Judge. The accused who was a young man aged only 25 years on the date of the incident was serving for about 6/7 years as a Welder in Grindwell Company at village Mora near Uran. His marriage with Shakuntala, the daughter of Gopinath Krishna Thakur (P.W. 3) took place about years prior to the incident. For a few months after the marriage the couple stayed happily. Shakuntala gave birth to two daughters viz. Jyotsna who was aged about 6 years and Jyoti who was aged about 4 years at the time of the incident. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused was also the leader of workers union serving in the company. This led to his coming in contact with women workers and Shakuntala started suspecting her husband's conduct and behaviour, which gave rise to constant bickerings between them. It was also the case of the prosecution that the accused was under the impression that his father-in-law Gopinath is in affluent circumstances and he used to insist upon Shakuntala to go to her father's house and fetch ornaments or cash. The evidence, however, shows that Gopinath is a poor pensioner who had retired from Tata Company and was unable to meet the demands of his son-in-law. On a consideration of the evidence the learned Judge did not accept the prosecution case that the accused used to demand cash and ornaments from his father-in-law and on that court he was ill-treating his wife. However, the learned Judge accepted the prosecution case that Shakuntala was suspecting her husbands behaviour and conduct towards other women and that was the reason why frequent quarrels took place between them. According to Gopinaths evidence, a couple of days prior to the incident the accused had come to his house and complained that Shakuntala was suspecting his character and unless Gopinath told her to refrain from doing so be would finish her off. According to Gopinath at that time he tried to reconcile them and advised the accused not to indulge in any such ghastly act, assuring him that he would find out some religious way to mend the matter. The evidence of Gopinath on this point has been accepted by the learned Judge, since the story finds place in the first information report lodged by Gopinath soon after he came to know about Shakuntala's murder from the accused.

(3.) The crucial evidence against the accused is the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by him to Gopinath. Now before dealing with this extrajudicial confession it is necessary to mention a few facts. The accused was residing en the first floor in a double soreyed house. There were three tenants on the ground floor one of them being Mangala Upadhya who stayed there along with her, husband and children. The accused with his wife and two children were residing on the first floor, which was exactly above the premises occupied by Mangal Upadhye and her husband (P.W. 8). The first floor premises which was in possession of the accused consists of two rooms and there is an independent staircase for reaching the first floor premises. The entire premises have been taken by Grindwell Company on rent for its employees. The premises in occupation of Gopinath is about two miles away from these premises which were occupied by the accused and his family at the time of the incident. The murder took place admittedly in the premises in occupation of the accused. It is the case of the accused that he was on shift duty from 4.30 p.m. on the previous day till 8 a.m. on the next day and on his return in the morning he noticed that his wife was murdered and on seeing his wife having been murdered he immediately left the house after locking it along with his two children to his father-in-law Gopinath to inform him about the incident. According to the accused, he only told Gopinath that his wife Shakuntala was finished and handed over to him the key of the house and thereafter Gopinath left his house while the accused continued to remain in the house of Gopinath with the children. According to Gopinath, however, the accused made the extra-judicial confession to him to the effect that Mama, I have come after finishing Shakuntala Gopinath then asked him What non-sense you are speaking. I will myself go and verify the fact. Gopinath has further deposed that when he started going to the quarters of the accused the accused offered him the key of the lock saying that I have confined her and locked the door. His evidence shows that the accused and his daughters then remained in his house and he proceeded to the house of the accused on a bicycle. In the first information report (Exh. 9) lodged by Gopinath at the police station at about 9.45 a.m. it has been mentioned by him that at about 9 a.m. his son-in-law came riding a bicycle along with the two daughters and said .Mama, last night the quarrel took place between me and Shaku and I have come after finishing Shaku. Now, there is no reference in his evidence about the accused having told him about any quarrel having taken place between the accused and his wife. Gopinaths wife Laxmibai (P.W. 7) who was present in the house when the accused came there with the two children also speaks of the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. In her examination-in- chief she has deposed about the accused having said to her husband I have come after finishing ShakuntalaT1. In her cross-examination, however, she admitted that the accused merely said Shakuntala is finished.' She admitted that she did not find that the accused was in a horrified state of mind nor did she have any talk with the accused after her husband Gopinath left for the quarters of the accused. According to her, the accused, however, inquired with her as to when Gopinath would return, to which she did not give any reply. Thus, in view of the admission of Laxmibai in the cross-examination that the accused had merely stated Shakuntala is finished a doubt arises as to what was exactly uttered by the accused. Did he say TIJ have come after finishing ShakuntalaT or merely stated Shakuntala is finished? The admission of Laxmibai in the cross- examination supports the case of the accused that he had not made any extra-judicial confession, but (merely told Gopinath that Shakuntala is finished. There is admittedly no corroborative piece of evidence whatsoever to support Gopinath's evidence about the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. Mangala is silent on the question as to whether the accused was in his first floor premises on that night. There is no evidence of any other witness having seen him either in the house or outside the house in the evening or on that night. We shall presently show that there are also other serious infirmities in the prosecution case which have remained to be explained by the prosecution.