MAHADEV SONU PARDHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHADEV Sonu Pardhi - accused - appellant who was charged for intentionally and knowingly causing the death of his wife Sou. Madhavi and son Sharad was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Sawantwadi and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by judgment and order dated August 10, 1995.

(2.) THE prosecution story, as stand unfolded at the trial, briefly put is as under : the complainant-Dnyanoba Sonu Pardhi is the real brother of the appellant. He resides in 1/2 portion of the ancestral house along with his father Sony, wife Manisha and sons Nilesh and Sadan. The remaining half portion is in occupation of Kashiram Pardhi, cousin of the complainant. The complainants father had a second house adjoining to the house occupied by the complainant. Half portion of the second house was in possession of the appellant and the remaining was occupied by Dattaram, real brother of the complainant. Dattaram was residing in that portion with his wife Sugandha and sons named, Sachin, Samir and Swapnil. On demand by the appellant, his father gave him separate share in the ancestral property viz. agricultural land and a house in partition. On May 15, 1992 at about 2. 00 p. m. the complainant, his wife Manisha and his children were sitting on the outside platform of their house and taking rest. They heard shouts from the direction of the house of the appellant as "i committed the murder of my wife and son hence nothing remained for me". The appellant shouted loudly as "i killed my wife and son, nothing remained for me. I lost everything". The complainant, his wife Manisha and cousin sister-in-law Laxmi came out of their house. The complainant saw one iron sickle smeared with blood in the right hand of the appellant. The complainant, his wife Manisha and Laxmi rushed towards the house of the appellant in order to see as to what happened. While they were proceeding towards the house of the appellant, the appellant threw the sickle on the platform of his house and ran away in the jungle. The complainant, his wife Manisha and his cousin sister-in-law entered the house of the appellant. They noticed sickle with bloodstains lying on the platform of the house. They saw Madhavi and Sharad, wife and son of the appellant, in a pool of blood. The complainant immediately rushed to Madhukar Parabl, the Police Patil of village Satoli. He informed the Police Patil that the appellant had killed his wife and son by giving sickle blows. The Police Patil came to the place of incident. The information supplied to him was confirmed when he watched the dead bodies of Madhavi and Sharad in the house of the appellant. The complainant and the Police Patil lodged a report at Sawantwadi Police Station. The same was reduced into writing and an offence as C. R. No. 45 of 1992 under section 302 I. P. C. was registered. Pradip Mane, P. S. I. attached to Sawantwadi Police Station was entrusted with the investigation of offence. He visited the scene of offence on May, 15, 1992. He made inquest panchanama of both the dead bodies. Under his directions, the Police Constable carried the dead bodies to the Cottage Hospital, Sawantwadi for post-mortem. He drew the panchanama of the scene of offence. On May 16, 1992, the P. S. I. Mane attached the clothes of deceased Madhavi and Sharad through separate panchanama. P. S. I. Mane arrested the appellant on May 16, 1992. The P. S. I. sent the blood sample of the appellant and attached Articles viz. sickle (Palkoyata), plain earth, earth carrying bloodstains, clothes from the dead bodies to the Chemical Analyser, Pune on May 25, 1992. On completion of the investigation, the P. S. I. filed the charge-sheet in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawantwadi on August 8, 1992 against the appellant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence was exclusively tribable by the latter. The trial Judge framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 I. P. C. The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The appellant submitted his defence in writing. He denied the prosecution version in its entirety and in the alternative pleaded that he was suffering from schizophrenia since the year 1991 and that he behaved abnormally whenever he was under the attack of the said disease. He claimed that he was admitted in the Mental Hospital as indoor patient for treatment from time to time. He was also sent to the Mental Hospital by the jail authorities while he was under detention in the present case. In short, he committed the crime under the attack of schizophrenia.

(3.) THE prosecution relied upon eight set of different circumstances to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant viz.