STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHRIRANG KRISHNA GHOLAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Shrirang Krishna Gholap has been convicted of an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, and he has been sentenced to suffer transportation for life. This is an appeal against that order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) The facts of the case as contended by the prosecution may shortly be stated. The deceased woman in this case was one Shantabai. The prosecution says that she had been living with one Maruti for two or two and half years. Some six months before the date of this incident the appellant was introduced to the said Maruti by Shantabai. The reason for the introduction was that the appellant desired to board et the place of Maruti and Shantabai. Maruti agreed to the proposal with the result that the appellant was permitted to board at the place where Maruti and Shantabai were residing! together. About a month after the appellant started boarding with Maruti and Shantabai, Maruti went to his native place. He stayed in his native place for about a month and then returned to Bombay, when he returned to Bombay, Shantabai complained to him that the appellant had misbehaved with her by molesting her during his absence. When Maruti was informed of this, he immediately asked the appellant to cease boarding at his place. Thereafter the appellant did not go to the place of Maruti and Shantabai for boarding. Some time thereafter Maruti sent away Shantabai to her native place. Maruti thereafter stayed with one Fakir Mahomed. Some five or six days before the date of this incident Shantabai suddenly returned to Bombay. She went to a certain laundry where Maruti was working and informed him that she had returned. Thereupon Maruti took her to Fakir Mahomed's house. Maruti and Shantabai began to stay together in Fakir Mahomed's house.

(3.) This takes us to the day upon which this incident occurred. It was 2-1-1955. It was evening about 7-30. Maruti and Shantabai started together from Fakir Mohomeds place to Parshuram's house. Parshuram's place of residence was in Girgaonkar Wadi. Maruti and Shantabai arrived near the entrance of Girgaonkar Wadi. At that place Maruti asked Shantabai to wait near Irani's shop and he himself went inside. He met Parshuram and invited Parshuram to go out. Thereupon Parshuram started putting on his clothes, Maruti was just emerging back from the Wadi. In the meantime he saw the present appellant dragging Shantabai and stabbing her. When Maruti saw this he shouted "thief, thief". The reason for this shout probably was that Shantabai was bearing ornaments upon her person and Maruti's first reaction was that the idea of the person who was stabbing her was to take her ornaments. The appellant on hearing the shouts of Maruti ran into the Wadi. Parshuram, who was closely following Maruti, noticed that Maruti was chasing the appellant and was shouting at the same time. So Parshuram also joined in the chase and eventually it was Parshuram who managed to catch hold of the appellant. In the meantime a certain traffic Police Constable Maruti Sakharam Mahadik, bearing No 7791/T, also heard shouts. So he arrived just about the time when Parshuram managed to apprehend the appellant from behind. Constable Mahadik, snatched away the knife from the hand of the appellant. This knife was subsequently sent to the Chemical Analyser and the report of the Chemical Analyser and also of the Imperial Serologist was to the effect that there was human blood upon this knife. It may be noted that another Police Constable bearing No. 8441/F who at the material time was going towards the police station, also heard the shouts and he too arrived there. All these persons took the appellant to the place where Shantabai was lying. When they arrived at the place Shantabai had already died. The police took charge of the dead body. Ornaments which were on the person of Shantabai were also taken charge of. Her clothes were also attached. The knife which had been snatched away by Constable Mahadik from the hand of the appellant was also taken charge of. Usual investigtion was made and completed during the course of which statements of witnesses were recorded. These, shortly stated are the facts of the case for the prosecution.