VIDHYADHAR CHINTAMAN SATAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thane dated 14th October, 2003 in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2003, whereby the appellant is convicted under section 304 (I) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs in default to serve further imprisonment for a period of two years. It is further ordered that out of the fine amount sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs each shall be made over to the son and daughter of the appellant/accused and Rs. One Lakh to the grandfather dattatray for taking care of the children. The amount payable to the minor children was ordered to be deposited in post-office or a bank in their name, till they attend age of majority. The periodical interest amount was to be made over to the grand-father for the upbringing of the children.

(2.) The appellant was acquitted of the offence under section 302 of Indian penal Code, which charge was originally framed. Instead, appellant is convicted under section 304 (I) of Indian Penal Code as aforesaid. The prosecution case is that on the fateful day on 15th September, 2002, the appellant's wife Ruta suffered fatal injury on the right side of her neck i. e. her vital part of the body and eventually succumbed to said injury. The appellant-husband of the deceased ruta was found present at the scene of offence and had emerged from the bed room with blood stained knife in his hand. He warned his son Nishad not to disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter, he went inside the bed room and left the knife near the body of Ruta, which was lying in a pool of blood. The appellant thereafter, started communicating with the relatives on mobile phone including Supriya and Dattatray, the sister and father of Ruta-informing them that he has finished Ruta. On receiving the telephone calls relatives started assembling at the scene of offence. As intimation was given to the local police, police arrived on the spot and proceeded with the investigation of the crime. After investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. The trial Court on analysing oral as well as documentary evidence on record accepted prosecution theory of appellant being responsible for the injury caused to Ruta on her right side of the neck, to which she succumbed. The trial Court considered all minute aspects of the matter and by a well reasoned Judgment proceeded to record finding of guilt against the appellant. The trial Court negatived the defence of the appellant, in particular that Ruta committed suicide and it was not a case of homicidal death. Relevant circumstances to negative plea of suicide have been taken into account by the trial Court. The trial Court however, then proceeded to hold that the incident in question was not premeditated. There was no evidence of preparation to commit such offence in advance. The trial Court thus found that the act of the appellant/accused as established by the prosecution amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. On that reasoning the trial Court proceeded to acquit the appellant of the charge of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and instead convicted him for offence under section 304 (I) of Indian Penal Code. The State has not assailed the correctness of the view taken by the trial Court that the act of appellant amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is the appellant/accused, who has taken exception to the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court in the present appeal.

(3.) With the assistance of Mrs. Pranali Kakade, learned amicus curiae and the Public Prosecutor I have gone through the materials on record. The question, that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view or manifestly wrong. To examine this aspect, I have gone through the entire material on record with the assistance of Mrs. Pranali kakade, learned amicus curiae espousing cause of the appellant and the APP appearing for the State.