HIMMATBAHADUR NARABAHADUR THAPPA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A father has strangled and hanged his own minor son on the tree, therefore, convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant-accused has challenged the said order of conviction.

(2.) ). None for the appellant. The matter was on board of final hearing. Instead of dismissing the matter in default, as accused is in jail since long, we have d. cid. d to hear such matters, a, appellant should not suffer or wait again for restoration and hearing of the matter. We have heard Mrs Kejriwal, A. P. P. , for the state. We have gone through the record and contentions raised in the memo of appeal with the assistance of Mrs. Kantharia, A. P. P. After considering the testimony of all the witnesses and after re appreciating and re-weighing the said testimony and based on the grounds raised, in the appeal, as well as, as raised by the a. P. P. we are of the view that the order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in the present case neeos interference. We are therefore, allowing this appeal and setting aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 26/5/2000 on the following facts and reasons. The dead body of Master Puppy, aged 7 years was found hanged on a tree. The Police Patil therefore, lodged the first information report in the evening of 20. 5. 1997. A crime was accordingly, registered. The prosecution case is that the accused, the father of the deceased was suspecting the character of his wife and therefore, doubted the paternity of his deceased son. On this suspicion, as per the prosecution, the accused had killed his son and hanged him on a tree, some time after 11 p. m. of 19/5/1997 and or before 5. 30 p. m. of 20/5/1997. The spot panchanama shows that the boy was hanged on a tree by a shirt. The shirt was tied around the neck. The body was brought down. The inquest panchanma of the corps, Exh. 13 was recorded. The dead body was sent for the autopsy. The panchanama of occurrence was drawn, Exh. 15. The Medical report shows that the death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation. After enquiry, investigating officer learnt, that the said deceased son was missing, since the night of 19/5/2000. The accused beaten the deceased son. Therefore, this minor son ran away from the house in the night of 19/5/2000. As per the police, the death was not suicidal out it was homicidal, therefore, the report was lodged and the offence was registered under section 302 of I. P. C. The statements were recorded. The accused was arrested on 24/5/1997 only because, the accused was alleged to be absconding from 21/5/1997.

(3.) THE prosecution has examined 5 witnesses. There is no eye witness to the incident. No witness examined by the accused. The trial commenced further as the accused has denied the charges and expressed innocence. The learned Judge therefore, based on tne material placed on the record and based on the circumstantial evidence, convicted the accused for the offence.