MANGALA RAJU PATEL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant original accused No. 2, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13. 1. 1999 passed by the Sessions Judge. Raigad-Alibag, in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1997 wherein she was convicted of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to under go R. I. for thirty months. It may be noted that co-accused who was also charged with offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with 34 of the I. P. C. was acquitted of the said charge. However, the said co-accused was convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the I. P. C. and was sentenced accordingly by the Court, however, he has not preferred any appeal against that conviction and, therefore, we are concerned with the appeal filed by the present appellant only who was accused No. 2.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the case, in nutshell, are thus deceased Rekha Narayan Shetty, was originally hailed from Solapur and PW-1 Purnima was her minor daughter. They both had come to village Kamothe, Tal. Panvel, in the year 1996. Deceased Rekha used to work as maid servant whenever she got the work. One Deepak was residing in their neighbourhood and Rekha became acquainted with him. Accused No. 1 Dinesh was brother of said Deepak and they both asked Rekha Shetty that her daughter PW-1 should marry to first accused Dinesh. About a fortnight prior to the incident, Rekha Shetty and her daughter PW-1 Purnima were taken by the first accused to his room in the locality known as Mal-Dhakka near Panvel railway station and since then they were staying in his room. Rekha used to go in search of job, keeping PW-1 Purnima at the residence of accused No. 1. Taking advantage of her absence, first accused Dinesh raped PW-1 Purnima repeatedly on various occasions. Thereupon Rekha questioned first accused about it when Purnima informed her about the conduct of accused No. 1. Such conduct of accused No. 1 continued inspite of prayers from helpless Rekha. Rekha wanted to leave the place of accused No. 1 with her daughter but he did not allow them to leave. The present appellant accused No. 2 Mangala was allegedly a keep of accused No. 1 and was leaving in the neighbourhood and used to visit accused No. 1 and also used to threaten Rekha and Purnima with dire consequences if they left the room of the first accused. On 11. 9. 1996 at about 10. 00 p. m. while Rekha and Purnima were in the room of first accused, first accused omitted and, therefore, PW-1 rushed to the place of second accused to call her as she was told by accused No. 1. When she found accused No. 2 was not in the room, she returned and noticed that her mother was in flames and both the accused were present there merely looking at it. On hearing cries of Rekha, mother of first accused and other neighbours came to the scene and put off the flames by covering Rekha with quilt and blanket. She was removed to Municipal Hospital Panvel in auto-riksha where PW-8 Dr. Vasant Paliwal attended her. After admitting her in the hospital at 10. 55 p. m. it was found that Rekha had suffered 75% burns. Dr. Paliwal informed Panvel police station about the incident. PW-10 Shrikant Dharane, P. S. I. received message and visited municipal dispensary. He also summoned PW-7 Vijay Ranade, Spl. Executive Magistrate and requested him to record the statement of Rekha Shetty. Pursuant to the request by police, PW-7 Vijay Ranade went to the hospital with PW-10 Dharane P. S. I. with permission and under the supervision of Dr. Paliwal. He recorded Rekhas statement after obtaining due certificate from Dr. Paliwal that Rekha was in position and was in mentally fit condition to give statement. In the course of her statement, Rekha squarely implicated the appellant to be the culprit who had set her on fire after pouring kerosene upon her. PW-10 P. S. I. Dharane thereafter recorded the statement of Rekha in the Panvel municipal dispensary and obtained thumb mark of Rekha below it. Rekha again consistently implicated accused persons to be the culprit for the impugned offences stating the details of the incident and back ground thereof to the effect that accused No. 1 had raped her daughter several times and thereafter on the day of the incident accused No. 2 poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. This statement of Rekha was treated as F. I. R. and offence was registered against the accused persons under Sections 376, 307, 506 read with 34 of the I. P. C. at C. R. No. 394 of 1996 of the said police station. The investigating machinery swung into action in which course panchanama of scene of incident was prepared and several incriminating articles were seized. PW-1 Purnima was immediately sent for medical examination and it was duly conducted, statements of several witnesses came to be recorded. The second accused Mangala came to be arrested initially from New Panvel. In the meantime, Rekha was also shifted in Sion Hospital for further treatment. Accused No. 1 was also apprehended and was subjected to medical examination. On 29. 9. 1996 injured Rekha succumbed to her injuries at Sion Hospital. Inquest panchnama was prepared and the body was sent for post-mortem examination in due course. C. A. reports and post-mortem examination reports were received by the investigating officer in due course which are filed and are part of the record. On completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was sent to the Court of law. The learned Magistrate committed case to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge framed charge against both the accused persons in the aforesaid manner, to which they pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused persons was that of total denial of any criminal liability. The prosecution led its evidence at length, on which basis the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the present appellant was guilty of commission of murder of Rekha by pouring the kerosene upon her and set her on fire. The learned Trial Judge, however, of the view that accused No. 1 was not guilty of murder of Rekha and, therefore, acquitted him of that charge. However, as noted earlier, accused No. 1 was duly convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the I. P. C. as it was proved that he had raped minor girl Purnima, however, accused No. 1 has not preferred the appeal. Suffice to say at this stage that, in the course of hearing of this appeal, we have critically perused the entire evidence on record and it is more than clear that there is sufficient evidence against the accused No. 1 for his conviction and consequent sentence for commission of the offence of rape on Purnima.