KASHIRAM JAIRAM PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant no. 1 father and appellant no. 2 mother, were charged, tried and convicted for the murder of their daughter Raijabai (the deceased). Therefore, present common appeal against the judgment and order of conviction

(2.) On the basis of an anonymous letter and a letter dated 1/9/1992, by P. W. 11 hiraman Chavan, and in pursuance to the letter dated 4-9-1992 of the Judicial Magistrate F. C. , satana received on 25-9-1992, by the Police station Jaikheda, the investigation was set in motion. As per the prosecution the deceased, pregnant of 5 months, was missing since 28/7/1992. It is alleged that the appellants/accused killed the deceased by administering poison and buried the dead body in the field. On investigation a skeleton was exhumed from the land on 1/10/1992, in presence of an Executive magistrate and a Doctor. The post-mortem of the skeleton was performed by the doctor and a panchanama was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 1/10/1992 accidental death, was registered. However, on 9/10/1992 P. S. I. Gunjal, P. W. 1, lodged the complaint to Jaikheda Police Station and accordingly offence was registered against the accused. They were arrested on 9/10/1992. On 14/10/1992, appellant No. 2 Sakubai, confessed the crime before the Special Judicial Magistrate p. W. 10, Sudhakar More and admitted the crime by implicating appellant No. 1 also, stating that the deceased who was residing with them a tkatervel, Tal.- Malegaon, Dist.-Nasik had illicit relationship and was carrying pregnancy of two months. They poisoned her, as she was not disclosing the name with whom she had illicit relationship. After due investigation charges were framed against the appellants/accused under section 302 r/w sections 34 and 201 of indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty. Their defence was of total denial. Accused/appellant No. 2 retracted from her confession. Their additional defence was that the deceased died of natural death. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and there was no defence witness. 2a. The learned Additional Sessions judge, Malegaon, District-Nasik, by the impugned Judgment and Order, convicted the appellants for the charges referred above and also imposed sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and passed the consequential orders.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. Sudhir halli, appointed Advocate for the appellants and the learned A. P. P. , Mr. A. M. Shringarpure for the Respondent/state. We have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.