SHIVNATH DAGDU GAYAKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default stipulation of undergoing further imprisonment for three months in the event of non-payment of fine and R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with a default stipulation of undergoing further imprisonment for one month in the event of non-payment of fine, by the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, jalna by judgment dated 8-12-2005, in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2005, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence.

(2.) Facts as are germane for the decision of this appeal can briefly be stated thus :-P. W. 6 Rashid Khan, an A. S. I, on duty at the police chowki at the Govt. Hospital, Aurangabad, received papers regarding the death of deceased satyashila on 11-2-2005 at about 2. 00 a. m. He thereafter submitted a report to the police station, Begumpura and Accidental Death came to be registered. The report of P. W. 6 A. S. I. Rashid Khan is at Exh. 25. He, therefore, drew the inquest panchnama of dead body of deceased Satyashila in the presence of panch witnesses at Exh. 15. P. W. 6 A. S. I. Rashid Khan submitted a requisition at Exh. 26 for conducting post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Satyashila. On 11th february, 2005, at about 10. 00 a. m. Pooja, daughter of the appellant and deceased Satyashila also succumbed to her injuries. P. W. 6 A. S. I. Rashid Khan accordingly submitted his report to the police station at Exh. 28 and on the basis of the said report an Accidental Death came to be registered. P. W. 6 Rashid Khan drew the inquest panchnama of the dead body of deceased Pooja at Exh. 17 and vide Exh. 29 issued a requisition to the Medical Officer for conducting the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Pooja. All the necessary papers in respect of death of Satyashila were forwarded to the police station, Ambad along with the covering letter at Exh. 31. The necessary papers in respect of death of deceased Pooja were forwarded to police station, Ambad vide covering letter at exh. 32. P. W. 12 Bapurao Kurumkar, P. I. of Ambad police station, took up the investigation on the morning of 11-2-2005. In the presence of P. W. 2 Ganesh and another panch he drew the scene of the offence panchnama at Exh. 40. On receipt of the necessary papers regarding the death of Satyashila and Pooja, an accidental Death No. 13/2005 came to be registered at the Ambad police station. P. W. 12 P. I. Kurumkar took up the inquiry in respect of the accidental death. On that day P. W. 1 Babasaheb, brother of deceased Satyashila lodged his report at exh-13. On the basis of the report of P. W. 1 Babasaheb at Exh. 13 an offence vide crime No. 19/2005 came to be registered. The investigation of the aforesaid crime was undertaken by P. W. 12 P. I. Kurumkar himself. On that day he recorded the statements of some witnesses. Dead bodies of deceased Satyashila, pooja and Shamsunder had been referred for post-mortem examination and postmortem examination was conducted by P. W. 7 Dr. Mahadeo Lamb. In respect of satyashila P. W. 7 Dr. Lamb noticed that Satyashila had sustained 100% burn injuries. He, therefore, opined that cause of death was shock due to burns. The post-mortem report in respect of deceased Satyashila is at Exh. 19. In respect of deceased Pooja he noticed that Pooja had sustained 55% burn injuries. He, therefore, opined that cause of death was shock due to burns. The post-mortem report in respect of Pooja is at Exh. 20. Thus, in the incident deceased Satyashila, wife of the appellant had succumbed to her injuries and so also her daughter pooja and her son Shamsunder. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant came to be filed.

(3.) On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, trial Court vide Exh. 4 framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/accused denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined twelve witnesses. Trial court accepting the testimony tendered by the prosecution found the accused guilty on both the counts and convicted and sentenced him as aforestated.