STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NANUBAI DHANJIBHAI VEGADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Bombay acquitting the accused who had been charged for offences punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal code. The Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the death of the victim Dhanjibhai Vegada was suicidal and not homicidal in nature and, therefore, the accused have been acquitted.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1 and the victim were married. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had an illicit relationship which the victim objected to. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, went to the house of the victim on 16. 3. 1989 at about 9 pm and threatened to kill him if he harassed accused No. 1 any further. According to the prosecution, on 17. 3. 1989 between 5. 30 and 6 am, accused Nos. 2 and 3 entered the house of the victim, stabbed him in the neck and ran away. The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of the daughter of the victim who was 7 years old at the time of the incident. The prosecution claims that she was an eye witness. On the basis of the statement made by her before the police and on the suspicious behaviour of accused No. 1, the prosecution arrested the three accused persons. They were tried for having committed the offence under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal code. Accused No. 1 was also charged for an offence punishable under section 203 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused have been acquitted by the Sessions Court. The present Appeal has been filed by the State only against accused Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) THE prosecution has relied on the testimony of 11 witnesses in support of its case. PW1 is the seven year old daughter of the victim and accused No. 1. PW2 is the sub-tenant of the victim. PW3 is the draftsman who has drawn the plan of the house of the victim where he was found lying dead. PW4 is a neighbour of the victim. PW5 who is also a neighbour of the victim has been examined as the Panch witness to prove the spot panchanama and inquest panchanama. PW6 is the PSI who has made the Station Diary entry when informed of the incident by accused No. 1. He has drawn up the spot panchanama and seized various articles and sent them for analysis to the chemical analyser. He has also prepared the inquest panchanama. The FIR has been lodged by PW6. PW7, PW8 and PW9 have been examined as panch witnesses who have spoken about the seizure of clothes of accused nos. 2, 3 and 1 respectively. PW10 is the Medical officer who has conducted the postmortem examination. PW11 is the Investigating Officer.