BHARGAV KUNDALIK SALUNKHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHARGAV Kundalik Salunkhe, the accused-appellant, was charged for knowingly or intentionally causing the death of his wife Sou. Kantabai; for, knowing that an offence of murder had been committed, causing evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, viz. gold ornaments; and for, being the husband of the said Sou. Kantabai, subjecting the said Sou. Kantabai to mental and physical harassment and cruelty. The charges having been proved, he was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498a of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; to suffer R. I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R. I. for one month; and to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo R. I. for one month, respectively, by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, by his judgement and order dated December 8, 1993, in Sessions Case No. 18/87. The accused was also charged under Section 404 of the I. P. C. for dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use certain gold ornaments of the said Sou Kantabai. He was, however, acquitted of this charge by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) THE prosecution story, as is emerging from the evidence brought on record, briefly put, is as under :-Sou. Kantabai (since deceased) was married to the accused in May 1985. In August 1986, she was serving as a primary school teacher at Umbraj. The accused served as a teacher in Mhalaskant Vidya Mandir, Pali from October 1985 to July 1986. Thereafter he was transferred and posted in the New English School, Kadave. He was, however, residing at Umbraj. The deceased and the accused had rented out two-room suite in the residential house owned by Ganpatrao Thorat (P. W. 2 ). It is alleged that the accused used to quarrel with his wife on the ground that her pay was insufficient; that she used to visit the houses of teachers; and that she worked in the school beyond school hours. It is also alleged that the accused took exception to the visit of the deceased to her parents house. P. W. 3, Sampatrao Jadhav, uncle of the deceased, learned about the quarrels from the deceased and P. W. 2. On August 23, 1986, at about 6. 30 a. m. , P. W. 2 noticed that the door of the rear side room in the possession of the accused and the deceased was open. He also noticed that the Luna vehicle of the accused was in the room. It was Saturday. On Saturdays, the school hours for the accused were from 7. 00 a. m. onwards. P. W. 2 entered that portion of the house which was in the possession of the deceased and the accused and noticed that the deceased was lying in the bed. He did not find the accused in the house. He also noticed a chit (Ex. 54) near the bed. He read it and kept it at the same place where it was found. Thereafter P. W. 2 sent his son Ashok to give message to P. W. 3. The message was received by P. W. 3 at about 8. 00 a. m. P. W. 3 immediately left for the house of the accused at Umbraj. He found Kantabai lying in the bed. He tried to pull the hand of the deceased so that she could get up but to no avail. He called the doctor who examined the deceased and it was then that P. W. 3 realised that the deceased was no more. He noticed marks of violence and swelling on and near the throat of the deceased. P. W. 3 suspected that the accused had caused the death of the deceased by throttling her. He lodged the F. I. R. at police station Umbraj at about 11. 00 a. m. which came to be registered as C. R. No. 152/86. P. W. 3s supplementary statements were recorded on August 24, 1986, and on August 27, 1986. The investigation was conducted partially by P. W. 10 P. S. I. Kulkarni. He drew inquest panchanama, Ex. 12, panchanama of the scene of offence, Ex. 13, and the clothes of the deceased were attached under panchanama, Ex. 14. A note book, Article No. 9, and a letter, Article No. 8 (Ex. 54) were found at the site of offence. These were attached under panchanama, Ex. 13. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. The memorandum of postmortem examination was produced at the trial as Ex. 33. The Medical Officer conducting the post-mortem examination opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to throttling. The accused was arrested on August 25, 1986. P. W. 11, P. I. Chavan, took over the investigation from P. W. 10 on August 27, 1986. P. W. 3 on August 27, 1986, produced some letters or chits (proved at the trial as Exs. 28 to 30), before the investigating officer. On the same day, brother of the accused produced a hand bag, cap, shirt, pant, handkerchief and photo album containing two chits before the investigating officer and those were attached under panchanama, Ex. 17. P. W. 11 obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused in the presence of panchas. The specimen handwriting and signatures were proved at the trial as Exs. 47 to 53. While in police custody, the accused made a statement in the presence of panchas leading to the discovery of gold bangles and gold bormal which allegedly belonged to the deceased. These ornaments were seized from the possession of the brother of the accused at the instance of the accused as per panchanama, Ex. 23. The investigating officer also collected the application and the written apology submitted by the accused to the Head Master. The chits articles 27 and 28, proved at the trial as Exs. 55 and 32, respectively, were recovered from the house of the accused in the course of search on September 3, 1986 and these were attached under panchanama, Ex. 24. The disputed documents, viz. Exs. 30, 32, 34 and 55, allegedly written by the accused and his specimen handwriting and signatures Exs. 47 to 53, were sent to the Handwriting Expert for expert opinion. Jaising Landage, P. W. 9, Assistant State Examiner of Documents, gave opinion as per Ex. 46 that the disputed documents and the admitted documents were written by one and the same person. The investigating officer also got drawn the map of the scene of offence, Ex. 20.

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 404 and 498-A of the I. P. C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karad. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence under Section 302 of the I. P. C. was exclusively triable by the Court of Session.