DATTA KISAN MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-accused was put on trial before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge at Pune in Sessions Case No. 267 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 203 of IPC and by the Judgment and Order dated 24/4/2003 he has been convicted and sentenced for the said offences.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the deceased Shamal was the wife of the appellant and in the night of 27/1/2002, leading to the morning of 28/1/2002, she was found dead in the appellant's house at about 6 a.m. and the appellant thereafter filed a complaint at Exh.45 with the police station stating that on 28/1/2002 he got up around 6 a.m. in the morning and went out for attending to the nature's call. On his return, within a short time, he tried to wake up his wife but there was no movement and, therefore, neighbours arrived and it was confirmed that Shamal was dead. Case of accidental death was recorded by the police out-post Wakad under the Paud Police Station, Pune. The parents of the deceased were given information on telephone and from their village Bardhapur, Ambejogai Taluka, Beed District they arrived at Pune on the same date i.e. 28/1/2002. P.W. 12 Mangesh Virnak, Assistant Sub Inspector visited the house of the accused on the same day and noticed some marks around the neck of the deceased and, therefore, on his suspicion he forwarded the dead body for post mortem to the Medical Officer , Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Hospital. Autopsy was conducted between 7.45 p.m. to 8.35 p.m. on 28/1/2002 and as per the Medical Officer, who submitted the post mortem report at Exh.35 the cause of death recorded was "Asphyxia due to compression of neck with evidence of head injury present". The histo-pathological report was obtained on 2/3/2002 by the Medical Officer and he confirmed the provisional opinion as the final opinion for the cause of death. In the meanwhile, after receiving the post mortem report P.W.12 filed the complaint at Exh.46 at about 8.30 a.m. on 29/1/2002 and on the basis of which the accused was taken in custody on the same day. His clothes were seized, samples of his finger nails were taken and the investigation was taken over by PW 11 Sunil Khaladkar who, in the process, recorded the statements of the neighbours Kusum Mohite (PW 6), Radhabai Khadtare (PW 7) and some other neighbours. He also recorded the statement of PW 3 Devidas Jagtap, father of the deceased and PW 4 Vijaykumar Jagtap, brother of the deceased. Inquest Panchanama was drawn at Exh.37 by the Investigating Officer with P.W.9 Mahadev Jadhav as one of the witnesses therefor. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and charge was framed against the accused on 15/1/2003.

(3.) The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses. However, the panch witnesses i.e. Bhagwat Raut (PW 1), Sakharam Bokephode (PW 2) and Ganesh Khilare (PW 5) were found to be untrustworthy and their evidence has been discarded by the trial court. The prosecution case is totally based on the circumstantial evidence read with the medical evidence. When the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he stated that he wanted to file defence statement and the police had filed a false case against him. He also wanted to produce some documents in respect of the panchas to prove that they were habitual panchas. Accordingly the accused had filed written defence statement at Exh.49 and taken a plea that Vishnu Khadtare (PW 10) had illicit relationship with the deceased and when it became public, the deceased had picked up a quarrel with him. PW 10 was, therefore, annoyed and he entered the house of the accused when the accused had gone to attend to the nature's call in the morning of 28/1/2002 and with the help of other persons killed his wife and these persons along with PW 10 were seen running out from his house by the residents of the opposite house i.e. Hanumant Mannekari and Dasharath Jagtap. We have also noted through the evidence of PW 6 and PW 7 that the accused, who was on the spot at 6 a.m. on 28/1/2002, had taken another defence plea that his wife died on account of stomach-ache. Thus he had taken two different defences.