STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ASHOK HANMANT ATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 300 of 1992, whereby, the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for having committed murder of Sonabai Sidhappa Neknare, Rajashree daughter of Sidhappa Neknare and her daughter Ruksana and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : Deceased Sonabai was the paternal aunt of the accused. The marriage of Rajashree had taken place with one Jagdeo Shamrao Atkar, cousin brother of accused Ashok Hanmant Atkar. However, Rajashree and her husband could not pull on well and their divorce took place about4 years prior to the incident. Thereafter Rajashree was residing at village Kurghot. One Saipan was serving in the field of Daula Qureshi at Kurghot. Rajashree came in contact with Saipan and love affair developed in between them. Not only that but Saipan took her to Kumatha. At that place Rajashree delivered a female child from Saipan.

(3.) The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur framed charge Exh. 3 against the accused. THE charge was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. From the suggestions put to the PWs and the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code it appears that the defence of the accused was of total denial. It was his contention that in the village there were two political groups, accused was belonging to one group and Sarpancha Papamiya was belonging to another group. So, as a result of this faction the accused was falsely involved in the case by P. W.1 Papamiya, Sarpancha of the said village.