SUSHIL RAMDAS SONI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the accused involved in Alibag Police Station CR No. 56/96, under section 302 of the I.P.C., for grant of bail. Application made by him to the Sessions Court, Raigad, has been rejected.

(2.) THE offence has been registered on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner himself. It is stated that the petitioner has married with the deceased Kusum and therefrom two children - daughter Sweta aged 6 years and son Shashank aged 4 years are born. He hails from the Uttar Pradesh. Because of his brother Gurucharan started his business of Goldsmith at Alibag, he also came to stay at Alibag at the instance of his brother and later brought his family. His wife was short tempered and because of that there used to be quarrels. Kusum was sent to her parents with instructions to keep for some days and bring back only after she improves. Accordingly, she was brought back after three months by the father of the petitioner and they were residing there together, though not smoothly. Both were not talking with each other. They were sleeping on separate beds. Son Shashank used to sleep with the petitioner while daughter Sweta used to sleep with Kusum. On 13.5.1996, at night the petitioner returned after seeing a movie and then while going to bed he tried to take away Shashank from the bed of Kusum and at that time he touched the wife Kusum because of which she kicked him. Thereupon, petitioner gave 2/3 slaps to Kusum and in turn Kusum went to kitchen brought "Latana" an instrument with is used for preparing Chapatis and assaulted the petitioner. The petitioner got provoked and brought knife from the prayer room and dealt blows on Kusum because of which Kusum died. In the early morning he along with his two children went to ST Stand to go to his native place to leave children to his parents. Later on he changed his mind and went to Alibag, dropped his children to with his brother Gurucharan and then went to police station and lodged information to the above effect.

(3.) THIS application is strongly opposed on behalf of the Respondent-State by Ms. Kantharia.