STATEOF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MANOHAR RASHMAJI BOCHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 46/2001, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani. The respondent and two other accused were tried for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). All the accused are acquitted by the Trial Court. The State has filed appeal only against present respondent/accused No. 1, who is the husband of the deceased. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) Deceased Sheetal alias Anjana was daughter of first informant Piraji (PW 3). Piraji is resident of Borgaon, Tahsil Fulambri, District Aurangabad. She was given in marriage to present respondent/accused No. 1 on 19.4.2000. Accused is resident of Ranisavargaon, Tahsil Gangakhed, District Parbhani. Accused was working as Supervisor in the Government Project, Human Development Project and he was posted at Ranisavargaon. After the marriage, Sheetal cohabited with respondent at Ranisavargaon in the house of prosecution witness Dashrath Hake (PW 7). The incident took place in this matrimonial house.

(3.) It is the case of prosecution that accused used to avoid to send Sheetal to parents' house under false pretexts. It is the case of prosecution that accused wanted to see that the deceased does not get an opportunity to have free talk with her parents or brother. It is the contention of the State, prosecution that ultimately on one day, when accused came with deceased on the day of Panchami to the house of parents of the deceased and he was there for about one hour, the deceased disclosed that respondent/accused had illicit relations with a woman who was working with him in aforesaid office. She disclosed that on that count there was ill treatment given to her by the husband and his mother. The mother of the husband was also living in the same house and the said woman was living in the vicinity of the place of resident of respondent/accused No. 1. She had expressed that there was danger to her life as when she had raised grievance about the relationship, threats of life were given to her and she was warned to keep mum. Piraji made enquiry with respondent/husband after learning about the aforesaid things. The husband gave evasive answers by saying that Sheetal was taking the suspicion unnecessarily and he had no such illicit relations.