SHIVRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged for an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Sudamati Bajirao Jaybhaye. By judgment and order dated 28/11/2005 in Sessions Case No.19 of 2005 the Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed, convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.One Thousand, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. This appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief is as under :

(3.) Prosecution examined eight witnesses and placed reliance on post mortem report, C.A. reports, panchanamas and depositions of witnesses. Nobody had seen assault on the deceased but the prosecution has come out with some strong circumstances occurring against the appellant accusing him of committing murder of Sudamati. The child P.W.No.4 Kiran, Tarabai, the complainant and P.W.No.2 Latabai, neighbours of the deceased, have deposed before the court that Sudamati was residing with the appellant as his wife. There used to be frequent quarrel between them, and the appellant used to beat Sudamati. The neighbours had to intervene in the quarrel and rescue Sudamati. On the day of incident i.e. 3/10/2004 these witnesses say that while they were standing brushing their teeth in front of their room, the appellant came to them and said "Takali Marun" (killed) and went away. They saw P.W.No.4 Kiran, the son of appellant, coming out of the room who told these witnesses that his mother is not responding though he offered water. Thereafter these two witnesses rushed to the room of the deceased. They found Sudamati in naked position. Her head was broken and blood was oozing from the injuries suffered by her. According to these witnesses, the deceased had died there itself. This fact was informed to the police. A report was lodged by witness Tarabai (PW 1) to the police which is at Exh.18. The defence suggested these witnesses that they were involved in prostitution and they were not knowing about the day-to-day life of deceased Sudamati. But according to these witnesses, deceased Sudamati used to return home late in the evening by 8.00 to 11.00 p.m. after doing labour work in a hotel. The defence suggested that the distance between room in question and the bus stand is about 300 ft. to 500 ft. The defence further suggested to the witnesses that they are making a false claim of having seen the appellant and heard the words "Takali Marun" to falsely involve the appellant.