BAJIRAO SURYABHAN KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants were put in trial in Sessions Case No. 15/95 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Beed for the offence under sections 498-A, 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (the Code for short) and by judgment and order dated 29th January, 1996 the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict both the accused for an offence punishable under section 498-A read with 34 of the Code, whereas the accused No. 1 has been in addition convicted under section 302 of the Code and accused No. 2 has been acquitted for the same offence. Accused No. 1 is sentenced to undergo R. I. for life his conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and both the accused have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with 34 of the Code. The Sessions Court recorded that accused no. 2 was arrested on 12-1-1994 and she was in jail till 19-1-1994 and therefore, for the said period she was given set of. This appeal arises from the said order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE prosecution case can be briefly stated as under: Deceased Sunita was married to accused No. 1 Bajirao who is the son of accused No. 2 Asrabai and both of them are agricultural labourers. Sunita did not bear a child for about 6 years after her marriage and on that count the accused No. 1 used to regularly beat and ill-treat her. The accused No. 2 used to harass Sunita by calling her "wanzoti' (barren ). She was informing her parents about the said ill-treatment and harassment and also about the demands to get articles like cot, watch, beddings etc. from her father and then only she would be continued in the matrimonial home even though she could not bear a child. During the Diwali festival such demands used to be made and as and when the demands were not met, the accused No. 1 had gone to his in-laws house and brought Sunita forcibly to the matrimonial home and beaten her. Two months prior to the incident, Mahadeo Ghodke (P. W. 2) had met Sunita in the house of Ramchandra (P. W. 5) and she had narrated the illtreatment meted to her by the accused. Both of them therefore accompanied sunita to her in-laws house whereupon the accused had first refused to take sunita in their house but with the intervention of the neighbours she was admitted in the house by the accused. In mid November, 1993 Sunita had joined her husband to work as a labourer for construction of road under the contractor viz. Syed Javed Jamal who had engaged about 100 such labourers at the site at Beed Borfadi Road. They used to stay at the site which indicated that their house hold was set up at the construction site along with other labourers. On 30-11-1993, they worked for the full day and went to bed side by side at the construction site and next day early in the morning deceased sunita allegedly complained of pains. The accused No. 1 informed the same to dadahari (P. W. 11) who was the supervisor of the construction site and Sunita was therefore taken to the civil hospital at Beed in a truck. The Medical Officer on duty noted that Sunita was unconscious and she was admitted around 8a. m. While under treatment she passed away at about 9 p. m. on 1-12-1993. Inquest panchanama at Exh. 11 was drawn and it was noted that there were red marks around her neck, abrasions on left knee, left calf muscle as well as on elbows of both hands. A blood clot was seen near her ear. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem and Dr. Tukaram Deshmukh (P. W. 9) had conducted the post-mortem. The post-mortem report at Exh. 31 was prepared and signed by him along with Dr. Khose. The provisional certificate (Exh. 29) was issued on 2-12-1993 by both the doctors and on receiving the c. A. report they issued final certificate at Ext. 30 and as per the same the probable cause of death was recorded as "cardio respiratory failure, due to cerebral hypoxia and secondary of stragulation". Rajendra (P. W. 4) the father of deceased Sunita filed complaint at Exh. 18 which came to be registered as f. I. R. The clothes of the deceased came to be attached under panchanama at exh. 9 by police Head Constable Dhas. The Beed city Police Station subsequently forwarded the complaint to Pimpalgaon Police Station and it came to be registered as Crime No. 148/93. P. S. I. Khan investigated the offence, recorded statements of witnesses. Accused No. 1 was arrested on 9-12-1993 and accused No. 2 was arrested on 12-1-1994. The attached clothes as well as vicera were sent to the chemical analyst. Thereafter P. S. I. Salunke had taken over the case. On completion of investigation he filed the charge-sheet in the court of J. M. F. C. at Beed on 17-1-1995. As the case was triable exclusively by sessions Court, it was committed by order dated 30-1 -1995 and charge at Exh. 5 was framed on 3-11-1995 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) BOTH the accused pleaded not guilty before the Sessions Court and therefore, the prosecution was called upon to prove the offence. In all 12 witnesses were examined. In support of the inquest panchanama at Exh. 11, p. W. 1 Laxman was examined and he stated that when he saw the dead body of Sunita he had noticed blood oozing out of her left ear. There were red marks on the neck. There were abrasions on the left knee and left calf muscle as well as elbows of both the hands. (P. W. 2) Mahadeo Ghodke, (P. W. 3) Syed jamal and (P. W. 4) Rajendra the father of deceased were examined on 4-12-1995. It appears that after these 3 witnesses were examined, there was a compromise with the accused and consequently all the witnesses examined on 5-12-1995 turned hostile. They were (P. W. 5) Ramchandra Rasal, (P. W. 6)Anita w/o Namdeo Narwade- the younger sister of the deceased and (P. W. 7)Asrabai Nawale-the mother of the deceased. Shahid Khan (P. W. 8) and Shivaji dhas (P. W. 9) were examined as police personnel.