STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MUKUND NAMDEO HALUNDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused were charged, tried, but acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 306, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short "ipc"). Therefore, this Appeal by the State of Maharashtra (for short "state") only against the original accused No. 1, the husband of the deceased Smt. Chhaya.

(2.) The deceased married with the respondent on 2nd June, 1986. The alleged ill-treatment started after 5 to 6 months of their marriage. On 1st August, 1987, the deceased informed about the ill-treatment and beating by the accused to her brother PW4, ulhas. On 1st February, 1991, at about 2.45 p. m. , the neighbours noticed that the deceased was lying inside the house in a burnt condition. The accused was not allowing anybody to enter into the house. However, some persons entered the house forcibly and look the deceased to Sassoon General hospital, Pune. However, on the same date, she succumbed to the injuries. As per the prosecution, the deceased was burnt by original accused Nos. 1 to 3, by pouring kerosene on her person or alternatively, it was a case of suicide, abetted by original accused nos. 1 to 3. PW2, Gangubai, the mother of the deceased, on 2nd February, 1991, had lodged a complaint to that effect, but no action was initiated on the same. API Kalbhor visited the spot, but the house was locked. The Spot Panchanama was recorded on 3rd february, 1991, at about 10. 15p. m. On 15th february, 1991, the complainant, therefore, filed the report in the Police Station. The inquest Panchanama was also recorded by him and he arrested accused Nos. 2 and 3 on 16th February, 1991, and the accused No. 1 on 20th February, 1991. After completion of the necessary investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted. All the accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of total denial. The defence case further shows that the deceased was five months' pregnant and while preparing the idlis on the stove, she had sustained burn injuries and succumbed to it. Original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not residing with accused No. 1. Therefore, their defence was of false implication.

(3.) Five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to unfold its case and one, by the defence. PW1, Pandurang, being a neighbour, claimed to be the eyewitness of the incident. P. W. 2, Gangubai, is the mother of the deceased and she is the complainant. PW3, Rekha and PW4, Vilas, are the real sister and brother, respectively, of the deceased and they have deposed to support the prosecutions case about the illtreatment and harassment. API Kalbhor, pw5, is the Investigating Officer. Chandrabhan Pawar, DW1, is the defence witness.