PUSHPA RAMCHANDRA GORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7.5.1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.6 of 1983, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC, has come up in appeal before us.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case runs as follows : The appellant was married to Ramchandra Savaleram Gore P. W.4.Sometimes in the year 1973. Two issues were born to them viz. Sanjay and Manisha. While the appellant was pregnant and was in the 6th month of her pregnancy, when Manisha was to be born, Ramchandra underwent vasectomy. This was approximately in the year 1977-78. Manisha's birth took place in Pimpalgaon where the parents of the appellant resided. The appellant did not return to Ramchandra after Manisha's birth. About 3 years prior to the incident the appellant delivered a third child Sonu, alleged to have been the offspring from the appellant's illicit relationship with Dhanraj Thorat P. W.7.The evidence of Ramchandra is that some times in May 1982 the appellant came along with Sonu and her other two children and asked him to keep all of them. Ramchandra kept Sanjay and Manisha but refused to keep Sonu; ostensibly because he felt that he was not his child. On the first of October 1982 Pushpa again came to Ramchandra and asked him to keep Sonu. But Ramchandra and his mother refused to keep Sonu. It appears from the evidence on record that Sonu was proving a thorn in the illicit relationship of the appellant and Dhanraj. It appears that Dhanraj did not want that Sonu should stay with the appellant. It further appears that the appellant having lost her husband ( certainly on account of her own volition ) did not want to loose Dhanraj. According to the prosecution on 4th October 1982 at about 7 p. m. she intentionally committed the murder of Sonu by throwing her in a well, in Gat No.1817/1.

(3.) THE case was committed to the court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial court th appellant was charged under section 302 IPC. To the said charge she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Her defence was that of denial. To substantiate it she neither adduced oral nor documentary evidence.