KESHAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated June 28, 2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Washim by which the appellantKeshao Nigot was convicted for offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/, in default, to suffer R.I. for three months; and also under section 306 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/, in default, to suffer R.I. for three months, the present Appeal was filed in this Court.

(2.) In support of the Appeal, Mr V.G.Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the impugned judgment and order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. According to him, the learned trial Judge relied on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, they being interested witnesses. He submitted that the trial Judge accepted the evidence of PW 1Namdeo, the uncle of the deceased and PW 2 Janardhan, father of the deceased, who were admittedly the interested witnesses. He submitted that even the FIR was not lodged by PW 2 Janardhan, but was lodged by PW 1Namdeo, her uncle and that by itself shows that PW 1 Namdeo was interested in prosecuting the appellant in a false case, because PW 1Namdeo had demanded Rs. 1 lakh for not lodging the FIR against the appellant and that is the reason why the FIR was filed belatedly i.e. four days after the incident (i.e. incident of 11.8.1996 reported on 15.8.1996). He therefore submitted that there is reason to doubt the veracity of the evidence of these witnesses. He then submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever showing the live link so as to hold the appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. According to him, even the evidence as regards offence pertaining to section 498A of the IPC was insufficient, inasmuch as there is no cruelty. Finally, in the alternative, he submitted that the sentence of five years for offence u/s 306 IPC is too harsh and it should be reduced.

(3.) Per contra, the learned A.P.P. supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that there is no perversity whatsoever committed by the learned trial Judge inasmuch as there is no inconsistency between the evidence of the witnesses. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.