SANTOSH DESSAI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of a Judgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge. South Goa at Margao in Sessions Case No. 23/92, where by the accuseds were convicted under Section 302 read with 34 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused No. 1 filed Appeal No. 19/95 and accused No. 2 filed Appeal No. 14/95. Accused No. 1. Vassanti Gaonkar is the wife of the deceased Shri Yeshwant Raghu Gaonkar and accused No. 2 is the paramour of accused-No. 1.

(2.) THE charge against the accused was that on or about 1-6-1992 between 2 to 4 p. m. in the jungle at Vatolemol, Shivshurem Sanguem with common intention they committed murder of Shri Yeshwant Raghu Gaonkar by assaulting with a coita and stone on the face front. Nose, neck throttled and private part twisted, which resulted in instantaneous death of Yeshwant Raghu Gaonkar. Altogether 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. But there was no eye - witness and as a result, the Lower Court had to rely upon the circumstantial evidence adduced in this case. P. W. 1, Bombo Gaonkar is the panch witness to the inquest panchnama. Exhibit P. W. 1/ A; P. W. 2, Or. Silvano Oias, who conducted the autopsy examination on the dead body of Shri Yeshwant Gaonkar; P. W. 3, Narayan Gaonkar, another panch witness to the inquest panchnama; P. W. 4, Shivaji Gaonkar, who is the brother of the deceased has spoken about the illicit relations between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 and also has spoken that on 1-6-1992, he had gone for his work in the morning and came for lunch and again went for duty and came back at 6 p. m. When he came back, his mother, Mogrem told him that Yeshwant was dead in Vatolemol. Accordingly he and the eldest son of the deceased went to Vatolemol where they could not. find the dead body of Yeshwant and they went nearby the hut where the father of the accused No. 1 by name Curgoro resides. Then P. W. 4 asked him whether he saw Yeshwant. Then Curgoro took them to the dead body of Yeshwant, which was lying in bushes and there were injuries on his forehead, the neck appeared to be swollen injury on one of the hands, the private part appeared to be twisted. He then informed this incident to the Sarpanch of their Village. P. W. 5, Francisco Gracias is the panch witness of recovery of coita panchnama. P. W. 6, Tereza. Travasso is the panch of the attachment of the clothes of accused No. 1 and her arrest; P. W. 7. Raghav Joshiis the panch witness to the recovery of stone at the instance of accused No. 2; P. W. 8, Mahindra Oessai and P. W. 9. Xavier Pinto, photograehers who took photographs of coita and stone used for offence. P. W. 10 Olimpio Cardozo is the pancha to the arrest panchnama of accused No. 2; P. W. 11, Raghu Gaonkar is the, brother-in-law of deceased and brother of accused No. 1. He states that on 1-6- 1992, he had gone the Canacona and he returned to his sugarcane plantation by 5 p. m. Then he went to see plantation and by the side of t he planation, there is a Karot tree. On passing through the planation, he heard some one crying from near that Karot tree. When he went to see who was crying he found that it was accused No. 1. On questioning her she told him that her husband has committed suicide. At that time, he saw his father also coming towards the sugarcane plantation and asked him where accuse9no. 1 was. He told him that accused No. 1 was crying near the Karo tree. They then went there and his father asked accused No. 1 why she was crying, she also gave the same reply to her father and she pointed out by her hand, showing the spot where the suicide was committed. Then P. W. 11 and his father Gudgudo Gaonkar went towards the spot where they saw the dead body of the deceased and it was bleeding from his forehead. The deceased was wearing at that time only an underwear or a short pant. Both of them then went near accused No. 1 and his father told her that she should go and inform about the incident to her parents-in-law. Accused No. 1 then went to inform her parents-in-law. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused. P. W. 12 is Bhiva Gaonkar. He has also spoken about the illicit relations between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. He has deposed before the Court below that the deceased was residing in the property of P. W. 12 and used to work in the rice husking mill of accused No. 2, which is situated at a place called Hamna, less than a kilometre from the house of the deceased In the house of the deceased, besides accused No. 1, his 3 small sons were residing. The relations between the accused No. 1 and the deceased were not cordial for about 3 years prior to the incident though after their marriage for about 2 years, their relations were good. Thereafter, accused No. 1 went to her parentst place and started staying there and she stayed there for about 5 months. He also spoke about the frequent visits of accused No. 2 to the house of the deceased in the evening time as also during the noontime. Sometimes their children used to be at home, but usually accused No. 1 used to be alone at home when accused No. 2 used to visit her place. Actually once, P. W. 12 had asked accused No. 2 as to why he had gone to the house of accused No. 1 and he told him that he had gone to take some medicines, as he was not well. P. W. 13, Raghu Gaonkar is the father of the deceased. He has spoken that the deceased married to accused No. I, ten years back. About 8 months prior to the, death of the deceased accused No. 1 had started residing separately from him in the house of her father. About 4 months prior to the death of the deceased, accused No. 1 had come back to the deceased and they were living together and that was through the brother-in-law of the accused No. 1. After accused No. 1 came to reside with the deceased, about 4 months prior, the relations between them were strained and that was because accused No. 1 was having good relations with accused No. 2, who used to visit the house of the deceased. On 1-6- 1992, at about 8 a. m. , he had gone to Colva to have sea bath as usual arid when he returned home at 6 p. m. his wife started crying and she told him that the deceased had been killed by accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. She also told P. W. 13 that the killing had been done at a place called Vatolemol. He went to that spot and saw the dead body of deceased Yeshwant having only an underwear. He has stated that one Shivaji went to lodge complaint to the police. Thereafter, the police came there.

(3.) P. W. 14. Mogre Gaonkar is the mother of the deceased. She says that the deceased and accused No. 1 used to quarrel because of the intimacy, which accused No. 1 was keeping with accused No. 2 and accused No. 2 used to visit her during day time. Accused No. 2 used to keep the deceased in his mill and then he used to come to the house of deceased to see accused No. 1, especially around 11 a. m. She has also spoken about the quarrels, which used to like place between accused No. 1 and the deceased and she used, to intervene in such a situation. Because of the quarrels, accused No. 1 had left the matrimonial house and went to reside with her parents. About 1 year prior to the incident, accused No. 1 had gone to her parents place and she was brought back home by the deceased. About 7 months after accused No. 1 had gone to her parents place, she was brought home by the deceased and the incident occurred 4 months thereafter. She says that she was staying in the same house where the deceased and accused No. 1 were staying, but in another portion of the house, divided by a common wall. She says that on a Monday, about more than 2 years back, (the day on which the incident had occurred), she had gone for grazing cattle and returned at about 5 p. m. At that time, she heard accused No. 1 crying in her portion of the house. She then went to accused. No. 1 and asked her two or three times as to what had happened and she told that she had killed her husband. She also deposed before the Court that accused No. 1 told her that the deceased was lying at a place called Vatolemol. She then went in. Search of the deceased. On the way, she and the son of the deceased had met her other son Shivaji and all of them went to Vatolemol and started searching. However, they could not trace the deceased but they met Gudgudo father of accused No. 1 and he caught hold of the son of the deceased and said that, he would show the deceased and then he took them and pointed out the dead body of the deceased. She says that P. W. 13 her husband was informed about this by her when he returned from Colva at 6 p. m. She has further deposed that she informed her husband P. W. 13, that the deceased was killed by accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 and the reason for her conclusion was that at about 3. 00 p. m. on the ill-fated day she had seen accused No. 1 going towards Vatolemol She also as accused No. 2 going towards Vatolemol after about 4 p. m. but from another way. She says that she was at that time grazing cattle and therefore she could not follow them. She says that accused No. 1 went towards Vatolemol. The deceased had also gone after her almost simultaneously. At about 3. 00 p. m. when she was In the house, she hadt heard accused No. 1- asking the deceased that they should go to Vatolemol. She also says that when she was going to Vatolemol accused No. 1 was carrying a coita and she had identified the coita M:o. 9. P. W. 15, Indira Foundu Gaonker, who is - the neighbour of the deceased, -that deceased, husband of accused No. 1 was working in the mill of accused No. 2, which is 10 minutes walking distance from the house of the deceased. She says that the relations between accused No. 1 and the deceased were otherwise good but sometimes they used to quarrel. She says that she does not know how were the relations between accused- No. 1 and accused No. 2, but she knows that accused No. 2 used to visit the house of accused No. 1. She used to see accused No. 2 visiting the house of the accused No. 1 sometimes in the evening and sometimes in the morning whenever she was at her home. The deceased was working in the mill in the morning as well as in the evening and used to get the rice husked. She also says that she know the parents of accused No. 2 so also accused No. 2 and she used to, go to his flour mill fer husking paddy. She had never seen Vassanti, accused No. 1 in the flour- mill of accused No. 2. She says that she had never seen accused Vassanti and accused Santosh talking to each other nor she had seen them together. She says that she had not seen the deceased and the accused No. 1 fighting With each other.