UTTARESHWAR RAMCHANDRA DEVKAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2010, passed by the learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Session Case No.224 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows :- Deceased Vandana was the sister of P.W.1 Raju and P.W.6 Sanjay. Raju was the elder brother and Sanjay was younger brother of Vandana. Vandana was married to the appellant about 12 to 13 years prior to the incident. Vandana and the appellant had two sons and one daughter. The sons were residing with the parents of appellant at the relevant time. Sheetal daughter of the appellant and deceased was 4 1/2 years at the time of incident. Sheetal was residing with the appellant and the deceased. The appellant was residing in one room alongwith his wife and daughter in the agricultural land of one Kailas Bhendkar since about 6 years prior to the incident. He was working as Mukadam on the said agricultural land. Vandana used to come and inform her brothers P.W.1 Raju and P.W.6 Sanjay that the appellant had illicit relations with other ladies and she also stated that the appellant used to often assault her. P.W.1 Raju had admonished the appellant and tried to convince him, however, the behaviour of the appellant did not change. P.W.2 Ashok was residing in the room adjoining the room of the appellant.

(3.) Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that Vandana fell down from the cot and became unconscious and died. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para No.1 above, hence this appeal.