NATRAJ CHINAPPA NAIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted by the Court of sessions for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted for an offence punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal code and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the accused killed his wife and, thereafter, tried to commit suicide by consuming TIK-20 poison. He was brought to the Police Station by his mother and, thereafter, he was admitted in the hospital. The police went to his residence and found that one woman was lying in an injured condition in the room and she was sent to Rajawadi Hospital. However, before she could be admitted in the hospital, she was declared dead by the doctor on duty. The complaint was registered against the accused. Further, investigation was carried by P. I. Shirole. The charge-sheet was filed against the accused under sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted the accused on the basis of the evidence which was adduced by the prosecution. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken us through the judgment and order of the trial Court as also the oral and documentary evidence on record. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The law of the appreciation of evidence is quite well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 in paras 150, 151 and 152 has observed as under :-

(3.) P. W. 1 - Balwant Patil is the complainant. P. W. 2 - Gangubai Chougle is the neighbour who was residing near the house of the accused. This witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P. W. 3 - Anil dhas is the rickshaw driver who has narrated the sequence of events and has stated that he brought the accused and his wife Surya to his house in his rickshaw prior to the incident. P. W. 4- Prakash Ranshwarye is the panch witness, who has proved the place of offence panchanama. The TIK-20 bottle and a glass and an iron rod was attached form the house of the accused. P. W. 5 - Tulsibai Nair is the mother of the accused who brought the accused to the Police Station in a taxi. She did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P. W. 6 - Urmila Ingle was the Casualty Medical Officer in rajawadi Hospital on 21-7-1998 when the accused was brought in the hospital. P. W. 7- Sanjay Sagar was the panch in whose presence the clothes of the accused were attached when he was admitted in the Rajawadi Hospital. He also witnessed recovery of the chopper and the blouse at the instance of the accused. P. W. 8 -Maruti Vishvasrao was, at the relevant time, in the Police Station when the accused was brought by his mother. P. W. 9 - Ashok Shinde carried the postmortem on the dead body of Surya Natraj Nair. He also produced Chemical analyser's Certificate of the blood of Surya. P. W. 10 - Suresh Nirmal was, at the relevant time, the API and had accompanied the P. I. Shirole at the place of the offence. P. W. 11 - Chintaman Shirole carried out the investigation.