RAMPRASAD TUKARAM GADADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant and his mother Ashabai (original accused No. 2) were prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under section 498a and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them are acquitted for offence punishable under section 498a. Accused No, 2 is acquitted for offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Penal Code. Appellant, however, is convicted for having committed offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, by his order dated 1st November, 2004 and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one month. This order of conviction and sentence is impugned by the appellant in the present appeal.

(2.) Relevant facts stated in brief are that appellant; his father Tukaram. mother Ashabai (accused No. 2) and brothers Bappa, Namdeo, Sambhaji and vitthal reside at Chinchkhandi, Taluka Ambejogai. Elder brother of the appellant is mentally sick. Except his elder brother all are married. Appellant married deceased Suvarna about four to five years prior to the incident. They have two daughters and one son. Youngest daughter was two and half months old at the time of occurrence. The deceased was properly treated for some time after the marriage. Thereafter, the appellant and his mother started subjecting the deceased to harassment as she could not cook food properly and was reluctant to work in the field. At the relevant time appellant, his brothers Sambhaji, Namdeo and sister Parvati had come to Dahiphal for harvesting sugarcane with others. The workers were living in separate huts, erected in the field of Jagannath Kakde; by the side of the road at Dahiphal. In the beginning appellant was working with his sister. The deceased had been to the house of her father at Karewadi for delivery. About fifteen days prior to the incident, appellant brought his wife from karewadi and started working with her. The deceased was not willing to work and was insisting on returning to her parental house. Therefore, there were quarrels between the spouses. On 8th January, 2004 all the workers went to the work at 7. 00 O'clock in the morning, but the appellant did not join them as he had to go to the dispensary for the treatment of injury to his palm due to pricking of the thorn. The deceased also did not go for work. When the workers returned to the camp, they found the dead body of the deceased in sitting posture at the hut. Her young daughter was weeping by her side. The appellant was not at the house. Brothers of the appellant came to know of the death of their sister-in-law at about 4. 00 p. m. They sent message to her father Dhondiram Kawale (P. W. 2). Brother of appellant Sambhaji reported the death of his sister-in-law to Yermala police at 11. 30 p. m. On the basis of this report, A. D. No. 1 of 2004 was registered under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code and inquiry was conducted by P. S. I. Kadam (P. W. 6). He visited the scene of the occurrence and held inquest on the dead body (Exh. 26). After despatching the dead body for post-mortem to Primary Health Centre Dahiphal, P. W. 6 prepared panchanama of the scene of occurrence (Exh. 23). Broken red coloured ribbon found around the neck of deceased was attached under this panchanama. Complainant Dhondiram came to Dahiphal at about 1. 00 a. m. when he reached the hut the appellant was not there. He found dead body of his daughter with ribbon around her neck. On the next day he lodged report (Exh. 21) with Yermala Police, alleging that the appellant and his mother have committed murder of his daughter. By that time post-mortem report showing the cause of death to be asphyxia due to strangulation was received. Thus, offence came to be registered against the appellant and his mother under sections 498a and 302 read with 34 of the Indian penal Code. The appellant came to be arrested on 9-1-2004 at 7. 00 p. m. and accused No. 2 came to be arrested on 4-3-2004 at 11. 20 a. m. After completion of the investigation, both the accused were charge-sheeted.

(3.) At the trial, though suggestion was given to the Investigating Officer that the appellant had been to Madha for taking his salary, the appellant adopted defence of total denial.