DEEPESH RAIKER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the accused(i.e. accused no. 1) in Sessions Case No. 16/2004 who has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and R.I. of 7 years, respectively, and, in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- on each count.

(2.) The accused got civilly married to the deceased Ms. Supriya Lotlikar on 24-11-2003. The deceased was working as a Laboratory Technician in the Pathology Laboratory of Dr. Raikar/PW5 and as the evidence shows she was a girl of good character and jovial in nature. The accused owns a jewellery shop. Theirs was an arranged marriage and a formal engagement as well as religious marriage were yet to take place for which no dates were fixed. It is common knowledge that until celebration of religious rites, civilly married couples do not reside together. On 12-12-2003 the accused along with his mother and a friend by name Amol Lotlikar visited the deceased on the occasion of her birthday and thereafter visited her on two or three occasions with his said friend Amol. On 23-2-2004 the accused took the deceased for a drive, from her work place, and this incident was narrated by her at home to her parents and sisters. That was after the deceased was called from her work place by a phone call that she should come down and meet him. That trip was a subject matter of discussion in the family of the deceased for about 2 to 3 days and there is nothing on record even to remotely suggest that the said trip between the accused and the deceased did not go well. On 26-2-2004 the deceased went to the Laboratory in the morning and left the same at about 2.45 p.m. after receiving a phone call in a happy mood, never to return again.

(3.) As the deceased did not return home by 7.30 p.m., her brother Sanjiv Lotlikar/PW2 contacted Dr. Raikar/PW5 in his Laboratory who confirmed that the deceased had left at about 2.45 p.m. by keeping her belongings. Thereafter Sanjiv/PW2 went to the shop of the accused at about 8.15 p.m. only to find that the shop was closed. Sanjiv Lotlikar/PW2 then contacted the friend of the accused, namely, Amol Lotlikar and ultimately the accused, on telephone. At about 10.45 p.m. Dr. Raikar/PW5 was called to the house of the deceased and little later the accused also arrived there. Thereafter, Dr. Raikar/PW5, Sanjiv/PW2 and the father of the deceased Manohar/PW3 went in the car of Dr. Raikar/PW5 and the accused on his bike, in search of the deceased all over Margao but did not find her anywhere. Then, a decision was taken to file a missing report. As per Sanjiv Lotlikar/PW2 the accused was reluctant to come with them to the Police Station out of fear that he may be arrested but according to the accused he was told to go home. The missing report was lodged at about 1.40 hours on 27-2-2004. At this very stage, it must be stated that this missing report goes against the version given by Sanjiv Lotlikar/PW2 to which a reference in greater detail will be made hereinafter. As there was no headway in tracing the deceased, on 1-3-2004 upon legal advice, a complaint came to be filed by Sanjiv Lotlikar/PW2 under Section 365 r/w 34 I.P.C., and, this again inspite of the fact that the deceased was otherwise a legally wedded wife of the accused. The accused was arrested on 2-3-2004. Pursuant to the said complaint also, no headway was made in the investigations which were still being looked after by PSI Sudesh Naik/PW25.