BALU @ BHARAT SAHEBRAO SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged, tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) for having committed the murder of his wife Shushila @ Maya Bharat Shinde. Therefore, this appeal against the order of conviction.

(2.) The prosecution case, as emerges from the record is that one Shushila @ Maya (the deceased) was the legally wedded wife of the appellant-accused. The Marriage took place in the year 1980. The appellant is serving as a driver in the Police Department and therefore, they were living together in room No. 185 of the Police Line, situated at Shivaji Nagar Pune. They have two sons and one daughter. The relation between the deceased and appellant were strained after 1986, as accused had developed illicit relations with one Mangala Patil. The appellant thereafter started to ill-treat and harass the deceased. Various letters informing the same were written by the deceased to her parents. Some complaints were also made against the accused with other police officers, including higher officers. The appellant had also written some letters to his in-laws and expressed his desire to give divorce to his wife, the deceased. The appellant had also informed to his in-laws that he would not be responsible, if something happened to his wife Maya.

(3.) The appellant was chargesheeted. However, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty. His defence was of total denial and false implication. The appellant in his statement under Sec. 313 of Code Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) had defended himself by stating that he was on duty through out the night between the intervening period of 9th Oct. and 10th Oct., 1989 and when he returned to his house early in the morning on 10/10/1989 he came to know that his wife maya was missing. Therefore, he had lodged missing report in the police Station at about 19.15 hours. He had also asserted that the skeleton which was found in the valley of Katraj Ghat was not of his deceased wife. The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses. No defence witness was examined by the appellant.