ARUN BHAURAO KHARAT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/original accused has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 11/05/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 781 of 2011. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default to suffer R.I. for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-; in default to suffer R.I. for eight days. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The deceased in the present case is Nirmala. She was the wife of Satish. She had two daughters Sonali (PW 2) and Suchita (PW 3). Nirmala was residing along with her husband Satish, and her daughter Sonali in a hut in Govind Nagar hutment situated at Bhandup in Mumbai. The Appellant was residing in the house of Nirmala since about 1 1/2 years prior to the incident. There were illicit relations between Nirmala and the Appellant. One Nathu (PW 4) who was an orphan, was also residing in the house of Nirmala. Nirmala was taking care of him. There was a big brooklet behind the house of Nirmala. This brooklet used to get flooded during the rainy season. Sunita (PW 1) was the sister of Nirmala. She was residing in the same area as Nirmala. Her house was situated after about 10 to 12 houses from the house of Nirmala. Suchita (PW 3) who was the daughter of Nirmala, was staying with Sunita (PW 1) at the time of the incident. Both Nirmala and her husband were addicted to liquor. Around midnight of 08/07/2011 and 09/07/2011, the Appellant assaulted Nirmala on her throat with a knife. This was witnessed by Sonali (PW 2) and Nathu (PW 4) who were present in the house of Nirmala at that time. Satish who was the husband of Nirmala, went to the house of Sunita and called his daughter Suchita who was residing with Sunita and asked Suchita to accompany him to the house. Hence Suchita went to the house of her father Satish. After some time, she returned back. Suchita informed her maternal aunt Sunita that she had applied turmeric powder to the injury sustained on the throat of Nirmala. On the next day i.e. on 09/06/2011 at about 9.00 a.m. the Appellant came to the house of Sunita. He told Sunita that her sister i.e. Nirmala had spoiled his life and he will not leave her. Thereafter the Appellant went to the house of Nirmala. Soon after the Appellant left, Sonali (PW 2) i.e. the daughter of Nirmala and Nathu (PW 4) came running to the house of Sunita. They were weeping. They told Sunita that the Appellant had thrown Nirmala in the brooklet and they asked Sunita to accompany them. Thereafter Sunita went to the brooklet behind the house of Nirmala. She saw that the brooklet was flooded with water. She could not find Nirmala. The FireBrigade and the police were informed. However, despite vigorous search by Fire Brigade and police, Nirmala was not found. They searched for about 15 days. Help of fishermen was also taken to search the body of Nirmala up to Thane as well as up to Alibaug, however, the body of Nirmala could not be found. In the meanwhile, Sunita (PW 1) lodged F.I.R. (Ex.13). Thereafter investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed.

(2.) Charge came to be framed against the Appellant under Sections 324 and 302 of IPC. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the Appellant is of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as stated in para 1 above, hence this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant as well as the learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case, the submissions of both the sides, the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in Appeal.