VISTARI NARAYAN SHEBE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-accused has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1976 for an offence punishable Under Section 304, Part II, of the IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The accused was actually charged with the offence of murdering his wife Under Section 302 of the IPC Curiously an alternative charge was also framed Under Section 326 of the I. P. C. which was totally unnecessary when the higher charge of Section 302 of the IPC has already been framed.

(2.) THE accused was charged with beating his wife and causing her injuries which ultimately resulted in her death. Accused was a resident of village Pimpalgaon in Warora tahsil of Chandrapur district where he was residing along with his wife Yamuna and three children. Rupchand is the eldest of the three children, he having a younger sister Maya and a younger brother Chandralal. On 11th Dec. 1975, says the prosecution, Rupchand was going along with his younger sister Maya to Brahmapuri bazar to sell brinjals. When he had gone for a short distance his younger brother Chandralal came running after him and informed him that his mother was lying at home in an injured condition. Rupchand returned to the house posthaste and found his mother lying in an injured condition as told by Chandralal. According to the prosecution, he lodged an oral report at the police station which was reduced to writing at Ex. 8. When some of the villagers converged on the house of the accused hearing of the incident the accused is alleged to have made a confession to two of them. One such confession is made to police patil Pandurang Virthoba Tikle and another one to a neighbour Raj ram Urkuda Bagade by name. It has been sought to be proved by the prosecution that these two extrajudicial confessions were made independently of each other at different times. The police patil obviously on the alleged confession made by the accused wrote a report and sent it to the police station along with Kotwal and that report was subsequently made the basis of a formal first information report recorded by the police.

(3.) THE police arriving on the scene took the accused into custody and took certain other steps during the course of investigation. One such step was attachment of clothes on the body of the accused and attachment also of a wooden stand which was thought to be the weapon of the offence. On none of these articles blood stains were detected by the Chemical Analyser and we may, therefore, keep them out of consideration while discussing the evidence in the appeal.