BARKU MAHADA GHUTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the conviction recorded by II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.341 of 2001, the Appellant has preferred this appeal though jail. Since the accused was duly represented in the appeal, the matter was called out. Inspite of the fact that the matter was on Board, none appeared yesterday. Therefore, it was kept today. When called out today also nobody appears. In such circumstances, we have no alternative but to consider the appeal on merits. With the assistance of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, we have gone through the record and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.

(2.) The prosecution case stated briefly is that the complainant Sayvan, PW1 lodged a complaint in the police station showing that his father has assaulted his mother. This First Information Report, according to the complainant himself, was lodged naming the accused on suspension. The incident occurred in the night of 12th and 13th April, 2001. The accused was in the house with his wife and grandson Sagar. According to the prosecution, at about past midnight the accused assaulted the victim and left the place. The grandson when woke up found the grandmother lying in an injured state and breathing very slowly. He, therefore, raised shouts for help. The neighbours came and reported the matter to the son of the victim and the accused who came to the spot, took the mother to the hospital where she was pronounced dead. Therefore, the sentence earlier registered under section 326 was converted to section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation the accused was arrested. The investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed. The accused was charged for having caused intentional death of his wife Banshibai. The prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses to prove its case. The trial Judge on appreciation of this evidence came to the conclusion of the guilt and consistent with that conclusion, sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life which judgement and order of conviction and sentence is impugned in this Appeal as aforesaid.

(3.) PW1 Sayvan is the son of the accused who at the time of occurrence of the offence was away in another village where he was informed at around 4 am that his mother has been assaulted. He therefore, went to the place where his mother was residing, took to hospital where she breathed her last. He has deposed to the circumstances which he saw. After he reached the spot the accused was not present there. The mother was unconscious and, therefore, nobody could have told him as to who caused the injuries to the mother. He had heard earlier of the quarrels between the two and therefore, he expressed his suspicion that the father must have done it. It is obvious from the deposition of this witness that he is not an eye witness who was having no knowledge as to who exactly assaulted his his mother and has candidly admitted in his crossexamination that he named his father in the First Information Report solely because of suspicion.