ANAND UMASHANKAR MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th October, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code and awarding sentence of R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ - i/d. to suffer R.I. for 6 months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 309 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and i/d. to suffer further S.I. for two months. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that after judgment of conviction, the appellant surrendered himself on 3rd November, 2002 and he was imprisoned in Kalamba, Kolhapur Central Prison. He has undergone a full term sentence and with remission, he was released on 20th October, 2010 from the prison. During his stay in prison, he sent one application, however it is in torn condition and no date is found on the said application, in which he has requested that he had completed more than 5 years of his imprisonment. He did not prefer any criminal appeal against the judgment and order of the said Court, as he was not in a position to avail the service of any lawyer and moreover, he did not want to challenge the said judgment which he felt was just and fair, therefore, he prayed that as he is poor and could not pay the fine of Rs. 15,000/ -, that amount of fine should be reduced which he can afford to pay. Thereafter he filed another application on 11th March, 2008 through prison where he has requested the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court to appoint advocate from Legal Aid on his behalf in the matter. Thereafter the department placed this matter before the Single Judge of this Court, who by an order dated 16th April, 2009 condoned the delay of 5 years in lodging the appeal against the order of conviction dated 28th October, 2002 and passed an order of appointment of an advocate to defend him and then admitted the Appeal. The said letter of the appellant was considered as an Appeal. It appears that due to huge pendency of the matters and paucity of time, this Appeal could not be heard till today and on 20th October, 2010, the appellant completed his full term of sentence and was released.

(2.) On 16th July, 2014, Mr. Swapnil Ovalekar was appointed as amicus curiae and the matter was heard with the assistance of Mr. Ovalekar and APP.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Ranjana was married to P.W. -2 Mahesh Laljiprasad Agarwal. Out of the wedlock, they were having three children. The appellant knew Ranjana. On 12th July, 1991 the appellant/accused took her to Megha Hospital, Malad, as she has consumed some poisonous substance. She was treated there and was discharged on 13th July, 1991. Thereafter on 14th July, 1991 again she consumed poisonous substance and was taken to Coopar Hospital and was declared dead. Her body was sent to post -mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Baban Sripati Shinde on 15th July, 1991 and he opined that the cause of her death was due to ingestion of Baygon poisoning and brain haemorrhage. The police of Kurar Police Station started investigating the matter. They conducted spot panchnama. At the time of panchnama, they found a suicide note (Exhibit 14) written by the deceased holding appellant responsible for her death, as he used to come at odd hours of night and threaten her. He used to attempt to outrage her modesty and demand money. Therefore, she committed suicide. On the same day i.e. 14th July, 1991, the appellant also consumed ingested Baygon poison in large quantity and was brought to Mega Hospital. As his condition was very serious, he was transferred to Cooper Hospital. The offence was registered against him under Sec. 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The police recorded the statements of husband, relatives and neighbours. After completion of the investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet and the offence being under Ss. 306 and 309, the case was committed to the Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the trial concluded in convicting the appellant/accused on both the counts.