PHILIP BHIMSENT AIND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both these matters arise from the same set of facts we propose disposing them of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant Philip Bhimsent Aind has challenged his convictions and sentences for offences punishable under Sections 302, I. P. C. , 307, I. P. C. , 392, read with 397, I. P. C. and 394, I. P. C. , recorded on 23-4-1992 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 1395 of 1988, vide Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 1992. By the aforesaid order the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo two years R. I. under first count and to a separate sentence of 10 years R. I. and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years R. I. under Sections 307, I. P. C. , 392 read with 397, I. P. C. and 394, I. P. C. The substantive sentences of imprisonment, on the aforesaid four counts, have been directed to run concurrently. Clubbed along with the aforesaid appeal is Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 1992 which has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra, under Section 377 (1) of the Cr. P. C. , praying therein, that the sentence of the appellant be enhanced from life imprisonment to death.

(3.) THE prosecution case in brief runs as under :-The deceased Mr. Kumudchandra Khanna was an ex-resident editor of the Times of India and till his murder, was residing along with his wife Smt. Amrut Khanna (Smt. Amrit Khanna) P. W. 18, in flat No. 1, situated in Bhaktawar Building, Narayan Dabholkar Road, Bombay, within the limits of police station, Gamdevi, Greater Bombay. Three years prior to the incident the couple had employed the appellant as a domestic servant, on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/ -. He used to do all household chores and live in the aforesaid flat with them. They treated him like a son. On the night of 18-7-1988, at about 11 p. m. the deceased and his wife, (hereinafter referred to as 'mr. Khanna' and 'mrs. Khanna') went to sleep in their bed room and the appellant went to sleep in his room. We have the evidence of Mrs. Khanna for the aforesaid facts. Mrs. Khanna further stated that on the afternoon of 22-7-88 she woke up but could not even comprehend as to what the time was. Her left eye was swollen and she could not see from it. Even with her right eye, she could not see clearly. She was feeling weak, drowsy and giddy. Since she did not see Mr. Khanna on the bed, she naturally got worried and on getting up, from the bed, found that he was lying on the floor, between the bed and the almirah. She also discovered that both her almirahs were open and had been ransacked. Articles were lying scattered on the floor. The appellant was missing from the flat. At about 4 p. m. one postman named Dhulaji Pisal, (P. W. 19) came to her flat for the purpose of delivering mail and at the request of Mrs. Khanna opened the lock on the door of the children's bedroom in the verandah. Through him she sent information to P. W. 21, Sushila Jaswantlal Parekh who also lived in a flat in the same building. She along with P. W. 26 Mrs. Sigapy Muttu who also resided in the same building immediately came to her flat. The evidence of Sushila Parekh and Mrs. Muttu is that Mr. Khanna was lying dead and Mrs. Khanna was precariously injured.