BHUJANGRAO ANANDRAO DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal by the State is directed against the finding of acquittal for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Appeal No. 233 of 1989 is preferred by original accused for their conviction for the offence punishable under section 498 A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Since both the appeals arising out of the common set of facts and ORDER, have been heard together and being disposed of by this ORDER:

(2.) ON 2. 5. 1986 Lala (since deceased) married with original Accused No. 2 Trimbak. Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao and original Accused No. 3 Kailash are respectively his father and uncle. On 25. 6. 1987 at night Lala in her matrimonial home found dead owning to bum injuries. Accordingly, Accused No. 3 Kailash lodged a report vide Ext. 80. A case of accidental death was registered. The body was then sent for post-mortem. Dr. Garje (P. W. 12) who conducted the autopsy, submitted report vide Ext. 75 wherein he has stated that amongst other deceased Lala suffered an incised wound 6 deep on chest and other contused wound on her person. P. W. 1 Vilas Pawar vide Ext. 20 lodged a report of homicidal death. The offence was accordingly registered. P. W. 2 Shankarrao, P. W. 3 Subhadrabai, P. W. 9 Sitaram and P. W. 10 Ramdas are the persons who speak about the demand of dowry and ill-treatment to deceased Lala. P. W. 5 Sub hash is a witness on Panchanama of various seizures and particularly Ext. 31 is a Panchanama of a demonstration made by accused No. 2 Trimbak as regards the opening and closing of the door from outside of a room where Lala was found dead. Ext. 24 is the inquest. Ext. 30 is a discovery memorandum and seizure Panchanama is Ext. 30-A of article knife which is claimed to have been used by the accused at the time of crime.

(3.) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, recorded a finding of homicidal death discussing the material in Paras 7 and 8 of the impugned ORDER. However he further proceeded in Para 12 onward and reached a conclusion that since there is no evidence on the record indicating any overt act on the part of any of the accused, they cannot be held guilty under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge further held that no doubt there is an evidence indicating motive of the accused persons against Lala. But in absence of any incriminating circumstance, they cannot be held guilty. The learned Judge, therefore, by the impugned ORDER recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of all accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Judge convicted the accused under section 498-A and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence these two appeals.