MAHESH LAXMAN KORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. By this judgment, the accused has been found guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. He has been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused was married to Vaishali, the victim for two years prior to the death of Vaishali. They lived in Shiradwad. On 16.3.2001, the couple left Shiradwad and went to Rui where Vaishali s parents lived and Kagal to her maternal uncle s house. They travelled on a newly purchased motor cycle. They had tea at Kagal and then left for Sangavade where the grandfather of the accused No.2 lived. The prosecution alleges that while travelling on the motor cycle, the couple met with a minor accident in which Vaishali sustained some minor abrasions. After having a drink of water from person who lived near the spot, the couple proceeded on their way to Kagal. It is the case of the prosecution that before reaching that spot, the accused desired to have sexual intercourse with his wife. However, she resisted his advances. The prosecution alleges that the accused was enraged by this and banged the victim s face on the road and throttled her to death. Thereafter he placed Vaishali s corpse near a stone quarry and left for Kagal. On reaching Kagal, he purchased two gunny bags, jute thread from another shop and returned to where he had placed the dead body of the victim. He enveloped the dead body with the two gunny bags and tied them with the jute thread. After travelling with it for a short distance on his motor cycle, he threw the bag containing the dead body into the Panchaganga river. He returned home on the next day i.e., on 17.3.2001. At about 1 pm on 17.3.2001, Vaishali s mother Shakuntala arrived at his house to invite her daughter for the festival in their village, Rui. The accused informed Vaishali s mother that he had left Vaishali at her house in Rui. Shakuntala returned home and found that Vaishali was not there. Earlier during the day at about 11 am, the accused met Sanjay Kore, Vaishali s cousin, and informed him that he and Vaishali had visited the temple at Sangavade and Vaishali was missing thereafter. Sanjay and the accused then went in search of Vaishali at Kagal and Rui. On the morning of 18.3.2001, Vaishali s maternal uncle who lived in Kagal suggested that the accused bring a photograph of Vaishali in order to file a complaint with the police stating that Vaishali was missing. The prosecution alleges that the accused did not return on 18.3.2001. Thereafter a police complaint was filed by Vaishali s maternal uncle, Shankar Mardane with the Kagal police station at about 10.30pm on 18.3.2001. The prosecution alleges that the accused sold his motor cycle and left from Ichalkaranji for Mumbai with the sale proceeds on 18.3.2001. He returned to Shiradwad on 23.3.2001 and lodged an FIR with the police. The prosecution alleges that this was in fact a confessional statement on the basis of which he was arrested. Thereafter he led the police to the spot where he had thrown the gunny bag containing Vaishali s corpse. An inquest panchanama was drawn and a postmortem examination was conducted by the medical officer who opined that the death had occurred due to asphyxia on account of throttling. External injuries like abrasions and bruises were seen. On internal examination it was found that the hyoid bone had been broken. There were depressed fractures on the frontal bone, maxillary bone, orbital bone, all on the right side. The crime was registered on 23.3.2001 at 10.30 pm. A chargesheet was filed against the accused. His trial was committed to Sessions. The Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances on which the prosecution has relied on are: i) the accused and the deceased Vaishali were last seen together; ii) the accused purchasing gunny bags and jute rope from the shops in Kagal; (iii) the absence of any genuine explanation from the accused when Vaishali was found missing; iv) the conduct of the accused in not approaching the police immediately after finding that Vaishali was missing; v) the accused not returning to Kagal with the victim s photograph as requested by her maternal uncle, in order to file a complaint with the police; vi) the accused approaching the police on the 7th day after the incident and admitting that he had thrown the victim s body in the Panchaganga river and; vii) the discovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused.