MACHINDRA HARIBA MOHITE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1987 has been impugned in this appeal. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and has also directed the payment of a fine of Rs.1000/-. The accused has also been convicted for offences under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) When the appeal was called out for hearing, the advocate for the appellant was not present. We, therefore, had no option but to decide the appeal with the assistance of the learned A.P.P. in this case relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in 1996 Cri. L.J. 3491 between Bani Singh & ors. v/s State of U.P.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that, the accused was married to the victim for about one and a half months prior to the incident. The victim had complained to the members of her family that the accused suspected her chastity. It appears that, on 5.1.1987 the accused came running out of his house with his trousers on fire. Flames and smoke were billowing out of the house in which he was residing alongwith the victim. Two school boys who were nearby when the accused came out of the house, raised an alarm, others rushed to the spot. The accused walked away from his house, muttering "let her die". Somebody from the village informed the police patil who arrived at the scene of offence. The Police patil then reported the matter to the police station. Investigations were conducted and the F.I.R. was lodged by a teacher of the village school. The villagers found that the victim had sustained burn injuries and had died. An inquest panchanama was prepared and thereafter the body was sent for post-mortem examination. Certain articles including the burnt pieces of clothes and a kerosene can were seized from the scene of offence. The post-mortem examination revealed that the victim had died due to throttling. The police officer conducting the investigations lodged the F.I.R. When the accused was apprehended, he was found to have sustained burn injuries. He was, therefore, sent for medical treatment. A chargesheet was filed against the accused. The case was committed to Sessions and the accused was tried for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.