REKHA JAYSINGH KURHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 455 of 1987 on24.10.1997 the appellant- accused has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before us.

(2.) With the assistance of the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent we have scrutinized the entire evidence on record and reappreciated the same.

(3.) P. W.1 Jaysingh Kurhade is the unfortunate father of the three victims and husband of the accused. He has deposed that he is vegetable merchant and as such was habituated to leave his house around 2. 00/3. 00 in the morning everyday for conducting his business of vegetables at Byculla market. According to him on the date of incident as usual he left the house around 2. 30 a. m. And it was at about2. 00 p. m. that he was informed by his nephew (son of his sister) that the daughters have expired and the accused is seriously ill. He therefore went to Vashi, saw the daughters and came to Sion hospital to his wife. That is all that he has said in his examination-in-chief. He is cross-examined where he admits that the door of the house used to remain open always after his leaving early in the morning. What he has said is liable to be noted verbatim : " Myself and my wife loved to my daughters. Myself and accused never felt ill for not giving birth to a son by my wife. The accused had also never expressed her wish for giving birth to three daughters and not giving birth to a male child. My house at Turbhe was on the road surrounded by many houses. The road which goes from in front of my house is busy with traffic from the early morning till night. It is true that the door of my house was remaining open from6. 00 a. m. Till11. 00 p. m. It is true that many children and grown up inhabitants from my locality used to come inside my house. " The fact that the house was accessible to anybody is thus obvious. It is also obvious from this evidence that it is not any person who could have entered but any animal also could have entered the premises.