POPAT KISAN KHEDKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2005, passed by learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.140/2004, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows : The appellant was married to Satyabhama in the year 1990. The couple has two children, one of whom Pravin, aged 13 years, has been examined as defence witness. The elder son of the couple is about 14 years of age. The incident in question took place between 2.7.2004 to 3.7.2004 in the morning when the body of the deceased was found in a well situated in the field of one Giri adjacent to the land of the present appellant. A police complaint came to be filed by Rajkumar, the real brother of deceased Satyabhama, alleging ill-treatment to Satyabhama at the hands of the present appellant. Rajkumar received the information from Pravin (Defence witness) that Satyabhama was missing. Complainant Rajkumar arrived and search of Satyabhama was made by Rajkumar and the present appellant. The body of Satyabhama was found in the well and thereafter complaint was lodged about ill-treatment by Rajkumar. The body was subjected to post-mortem. The statements of witnesses were recorded and finally charge sheet against the present appellant came to be filed and accused came to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I have heard Mrs. Vaishali A. Shinde, learned counsel for the appellant, appointed in this case and Shri D.V. Tele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The oral evidence of Rajkumar, Dnyandeo and Sumitra has been carefully gone through by me with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the post mortem report and the documents proved and exhibited in this case.