PRATAP HANMANT POL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1998. Originally, all the 5 accused persons were prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A, Sec. 302 read with 34 and Sec. 201 read with 34 of the I. P. C. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty of commission of the offence under Sec. 498-A, 302 and 201 read with 34 of the I. P. C. , whereas accused Nos. 3, 4, and 5 were acquitted of the charges under Sec. 302 and Sec. 201 read with 34 of the I. P. C. but were convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of the I. P. C. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- each in default to suffer R. I. for one year for offence of murder, whereas they were sentenced to suffer R. I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer R. I. for six months for offences under Sec. 201 of I. P. C. and they were sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer R. I. for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of the I. P. C. Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and in default to suffer R. I. for one month for offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of the I. P. C. and, therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have filed one appeal, whereas remaining accused persons have filed separate appeal who have been convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with 34 of the I. P. C.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present case, in short, are thus-One Vilas Mahadeo Patil the complainant, is the resident of village Narle. His daughter Aparna the deceased was studying in 10th Standard. One Ashok Patil, cousin brother of the complainant and wife gave a proposal for the marriage of Aparna with Pratap Hanmant Pol accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 is the father of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 3 is the brother of accused No. 1. Accused No. 4 is mother of accused No. 1 and accused No. 5 is the sister of accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 was earlier married but had no child from his first wife and hence he and his parents intended to perform his second marriage and, therefore, proposal of marriage to Aparna was accepted and accused No. 1 was married to deceased Aparna. After the marriage, they were living together at their home happily till Diwali. Thereafter when the complainant and his brother used to visit the house of the accused, they noticed that Aparna was not living with proper manner but was not ready to talk anything. Four months prior to the incident, when Aparna had gone to her parental home, she complained that all accused are giving ill-treatment to her, such as beating and abusing due to the reason that first wife of accused No. 1 had delivered a child. Aparna also informed her parents that accused was telling her that she was no more required. Even on the occasion of second Diwali when deceased Aparna was taken to her parents home, she complained that the accused was not allowing her to eat food at proper time and abusing her. On 5. 12. 1997 at 9. 30 p. m. Ashok Patil told the complainant that he received a message through someone from Tasgaon that Aparna suffered an attack. Thereafter jeep was called by the complainant and in that jeep the complainant, his wife, his brother, Ashok Patil, other relatives and neighbour went to the house of the accused at about 11. 30 p. m. to 12. 00 midnight. All the accused persons were present in the house. On enquiry, they informed that Aparna had died and cremation had taken place. When accused were asked as to why the complainant and the relatives were not informed, they were told that persons were sent with messages but they could not contact them and therefore they could not attend the funeral. The complainant and others returned to their village. Thereafter, after consulting the relatives, the complainant went to Kasegaon Police Station for lodging the complaint, however, as the incident had taken place at Tasgaon, the complainant went to Tasgaon police station and at last the complaint was lodged against the accused persons on 7. 12. 1997 and crime was registered at Crime No. 279 of 1977 under Sec. 498-A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the I. P. C. on 7. 12. 1997 at 6. 00 a. m. On 7. 12. 1997 investigation commenced in which course panchnama of the spot i. e. house of the accused was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded and accused persons were put under arrest. One stick was recovered at the instance of accused No. 1. Clothes of the accused No. 1 were also seized under panchnama. Bones from the spot of cremation were sent to the Expert and on completion of the investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the accused under law.

(3.) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the impugned offences to which they pleaded not guilty. Defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability. Prosecution led its evidence at length on which basis the learned Judge came to the conclusion that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were guilty of commission of the offence under Sec. 498-A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the I. P. C. , whereas the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were guilty only of commission of the offence under Sec. 498-A read with 34 and proceeded to pass order of sentence against them in aforesaid manner. Hence the appeal.