NAMDEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 12th April, 2001, passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1996, by which the appellant - accused - Namdeo Bhauraoji Nagpure was convicted and sentenced of offences under Sections :-

(2.) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Narendra Madhukarrao Parate, the Police Patil of village Waigaon, reported to Police Station, Deoli, about the suicide committed by Chhaya Namdeo Nagpure by jumping into the well and as such Accidental Death Case No. 24/95 was registered. Police visited the spot, prepared a Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Statements were record. Father of deceased Chhaya, namely Mahadeo Lahanuji Lichade [PW 1], resident of Allipur, Tq. Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha, during investigation, stated that the marriage of Chhaya with accused-appellant had taken place nine years before the incident; but the accused used to harass her and used to beat her. When his son went to Waigaon to bring his daughter, the accused refused to send her with him and abused his daughter and son both. On 3rd June, 1995, his son came back to Allipur. On 4th June, 1995, the complainant received a message that his daughter died due to fall in the well. On the basis of report given by the complainant, Police registered Crime No. 80/95 on 4th June, 1995 at Police Station, Deoli, for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. Further investigation was undertaken by the police and on completion thereof, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court. Accordingly, trial was held. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the evidence, convicted the appellant as above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order recorded by the learned Trial Judge is based on the evidence which is vague and he could not have convicted the appellant of the offence for which conviction was recorded. He submitted that the evidence tendered by the prosecution is so vague and untrustworthy that the same is liable to be rejected and the Trial Court ought to have recorded the order of acquittal. He then submitted that no offence either under Section 498A or Section 306 of Indian Penal Code was at all proved and, therefore, the appellant is required to be acquitted by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order.