STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VINAYAK SHIVAJIRAO POL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the State against the order dated 31st March 1984 passed in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1983, thereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent-accused Vinayak was serving as a sepoy in military at 14th Maratha Light Infantary, Aundh Camp, Pune. Respondent-accused Baban was also serving as a sepoy in the said Camp. In the year 1980 respondent-accused Vinayak was married with Vimal who was about 18 years old at that time. After marriage, Vinayak used to visit his native place on long leave once in a year and used to stay with his wife Vimal and his parents in his house at village Tisangi. After about one year of the marriage, Vimal became pregnant and she was brought to her parents house at village Hingangaon. Thereafter Vimal gave birth to a female child. Two months after the delivery, the father of respondent-accused Vinayak went to Hingangaon and brought Vimal and the child to his village Tisangi. It reveals from the record that Vimal was not keeping good health after the delivery and her father Mahadeo (P. W. 11) received a letter from the father of respondent-accused Vinayak, informing about the sickness of Vimal and he was requested to take his daughter Vimal to his house. Accordingly, Mahadeo (P. W. 11) went to Tisangi and brought Vimal to his house at Hingangaon and consulted Dr. Karande of Vite who checked Vimal and diagnosed the disease as tuberculosis. Vimal was advised complete bed rest for 6 to 7 months and to avoid sexual intercourse at least for a period of one year. It further reveals that after about a month, the father of respondent-accused Vinayak came to Hingangaon and told Mahadeo that his son Vinayak had come on leave and, therefore, Vimal should be sent to his house and it appears that Mahadeo reluctantly allowed Vimal to go to her matrimonial home at Tisangi. It appears that respondent-accused Vinayak and his father did not believe that Vimal was suffering from tuberculosis and, therefore, she was taken to a doctor at Miraj who also diagnosed the same disease tuberculosis. Therefore, Vimal was sent back to her parents place at Hingangaon. It reveals that after about a week, respondent-accused Vinayak himself went to Hingangaon to bring his wife Vimal but as Vimal had gone to Pune for interview in the nursery school and returned after four days from Pune, respondent-accused Vinayak had to stay at Hingangaon for four days. Thereafter respondent-accused Vinayak came to his house along with his wife Vimal at Tisangi. It is stated that at the time of leaving the house of Mahadeo, respondent-accused Vinayak was in angry mood and was asking Mahadeo as to why Vimal was allowed to go to Pune. It further reveals from the record that respondent-accused Vinayak was also suspecting the character of his wife Vimal as she was found chitchatting with one Laxman Kadam in the presence of others at Hingangaon. It is stated that respondent-accused Vinayak, on expiry of his leave, went back to his place of service and joined duty in the military camp and his wife Vimal remained at Tisangi. Therefore, it reveals from the record that Mahadeo (P. W. 11) received a post card with postal stamp of 6-2-1983 (Exhibit 36) from his daughter Vimal requesting him to come to Tisangi immediately. Accordingly, Mahadeo went to Tisangi on 10-2-1983 to the house of respondent-accused Vinayak at about 4 p. m. At that time the mother of respondent-accused Vinayak was present in the house but did not find his daughter Vimal in the house. Mahadeo (P. W. 11) was informed that Vimal had gone for cooking in the house of one Patil and she would come back soon. However, Vimal did not come back for a pretty long time. Thereafter, Mahadeo started asking about the whereabouts of his daughter Vimal. In the meantime, at about 7 p. m. the father of respondent-accused Vinayak returned from the farm land with some she-buffaloes. When Mahadeo (P. W. 11) asked him about the whereabouts of Vimal, the father of respondent-accused Vinayak asked him (P. W. 11) to accompany him to the house of his brother Ganpat. Accordingly, Mahadeo (P. W. 11) went to the house of Ganpat alongwith respondent-accused Vinayaks father and there Mahadeo was told by Ganpat that Vimal had run away in the dawn with a cash of Rs. 125/- , certain ornaments and clothes. Hearing this, Mahadeo told Ganpat that his daughter Vimal was not of that type. However, Ganpat told Mahadeo not to disclose this to anyone. As that was night time, Mahadeo had to stay at the house of respondent-accused Vinayak and he left for Hingangaon in the early morning by bus at about 3. 00 a. m. and reached his house at Hingangaon on 11-2-1983 in a disgusted mood.

(3.) IT is the further prosecution story that one Ramchandra Bhausaheb Deshmukh (P. W. 8) owns a land bearing block No. 1198 at village Pusegaon and there is a well in this land. One Suresh Masne (P. W. 9) was in the service of P. W. 8 Ramchandra Deshmukh and was working in this field. On 13-2-1983 at about 8 a. m. P. W. 9 Suresh went to the said land and when he came near the well by about 10 a. m. , he saw a bundle of gunny bag floating on the water in the well and one hand of a human being emerged out of the gunny bag. Therefore, P. W. 9 Suresh went to P. W. 8 Deshmukh and told him about this fact. Thereafter both of them (P. Ws. 8 and9) went to the said land. In the well P. W. 8 Deshmukh saw a floating human body. Thereafter P. W. 8 Deshmukh went to Pusegaon Police Station. He reported the situation he saw in the well to the police and this information was recorded by P. W. 22 Arjun Narayan Dhuri, Assistant Police Inspector, of the said police station at the relevant time. On this information, P. W. 22 registered the offence as C. R. No. 15 of 1983 and made entry in the station diary. Thereafter P. W. 22 Dhuri started investigation and went to the land of P. W. 8 Ramchandra. One photographer and two panchas were called there. After taking photographs, the bundle of gunny bag floating in the well was taken out and on opening the said gunny bag, a headless trunk of a female body was found and the head was found missing. A panchanama (Exhibit 14) was drawn to that effect. Again, photographs of that trunk were taken by the photographer and inquest panchanama (Exhibit 15) was drawn. It was found that there was only blouse on the trunk and both the legs were tied with a green cloth piece. There were five stones in that gunny bag. Some injuries were found on the neck and the thumbs of the hands were found cut. Certain other fingers were found half cut. The trunk was then entrusted with P. W. 23 Jadhav, a police constable, and thereafter the Medical Officer, Pusegaon, was called on the spot for autopsy. After drawing a panchanama (Exhibit 13), a search was made for the head of the trunk in the nearby lands and wells but it was not found.