SUNANDA SHRIRANG NALWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By his judgment and order dated11-5-2004 delivered in Session Case No. 97/2002, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani held to two appellants guilty for offences punishable u/ss. 302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC. They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, fine Rs. 1,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for one year, fine Rs. 500/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on the second count. Of course, substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story can be summarised in brief as follows : THE incident in question took place on the night between 17th and 18th March, 2002, to be precise at 02-00 at 02-00 hours of 18th March, 2002. Victim of the incident namely Shrirang s/o. Pandurang Nalwade was husband of accused no.1. It is said that he taken to liquor addition and, therefore, was not doing any work. Consequently, his father had provided fiances and started a grocery shop for him. As the liquor addiction went on increasing, his capacity to took after the shop also diminished. Since about one year prior to alleged incident, therefore, it was accused no.1, who was looking after the grocery shop. It is said that accused no.2 was a customer of grocery shop and he developed intimacy, which resulted into illicit relationship between the two accused. According to prosecution, since the husband was an obstacle in the illicit relationship, as he had scolded Sunanda about the same, he was eliminated by alleged incident. It is the case of prosecution that he was killed by strangulation and thereafter the dead body was disposed of by putting him in a gunny bag and throwing it in a well.

(3.) On going through the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial Judge considered the medical evidence and also evidence regarding the position in which the dead body was found in paras 13, 14 and 15. Considering both things together, he arrived at a conclusion that the death was neither natural, nor accidental nor suicidal, but it was homicidal. For the reasons discussed in paras 16 to 18, the learned Judge has rejected the arguments advanced by the defence against possible finding of death to be homicidal. We may state here itself that was have no reason to disagree with the findings of the Judge that the death was homicidal. As already expressed earlier, even if medical evidence is ignored or even if we arrive at a conclusion that opinion of the medical officer to the effect that death was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation is to be rejected, for the sake of arguments, the manner in which and the position in which the dead body was recovered, is sufficient to establish that death was homicidal. The only change or modification that will require in the finding of the trial Court would be that the death was due to asphyxia. From the report (Exh. 54), it is evident that the owner of the well situated in the Survey No. 174 found that a tied gunny bag was seen in the well and it had a strong disagreeable odour. According to evidence of P.W.9 PSI Jakkawad, the floating gunny bag was taken out from the well water and on opening the gunny bag, it was found to contain a dead body "male". Navrang Nalwade (PW1) was amongst the people, who had gathered and he identified the dead body to be that of Shrirang. There is no dispute that Shrirang was missing since early dawn of 18-3-2002 and he was found in the well on21-3-2002 in dead condition kept in a gunny bag and the tied gunny bag was thrown in the well. The dead body within a tied gunny bag and the gunny bag within a well, rule out natural, accidental or suicidal death and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in recording a finding that death of Shrirang was homicidal.