DEEPAK ANANTA HILAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Accused Deepak Ananta Hilam being dissatisfied with the order of conviction passed by IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane dated 16.2.2006 in Sessions Case No.331 of 2005 whereby he was directed to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, has come in Appeal. The facts in brief are as follows :-

(2.) It was canvassed by prosecution that PW-3 Suresh Bhimashankar Jadhav is the eye witness to the incident, who is father of PW-1 and the maternal grand father of deceased Sarita. According to him on 6.12.2004 he woke up from the sleep at 6.00 a.m. Thereafter he went to answer the nature's call. Sarita was brought to the house from the hospital and he was learnt that she was dead. He is unable to explain as to how Sarita met her death. PW-3 has thus resiled from his previous statement recorded by the Police Officer. The solitary testimony of PW-4 also does not fully support the case of the prosecution. According to him, on 6.12.2004 at about 4.15 to 4.30 a.m. he has heard a noise of cries from the house of the accused Deepak. Thereafter, he went there and saw from outside the house that accused was weeping by taking (by talking) Sarita with him as to what happened (Kay Zale). At that time Sarita was unconscious. He brought a rickshaw and took Sarita to the hospital in his rickshaw. He was also witness for the spot panchanama at Exhibit 10 but denied that he saw a hammer or the mattress with blood, etc. in the room. According to him Police obtained his signature on the panchanama stating that panchanama is prepared which was already written. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has admitted this aspect in answer to question Nos.8 and 9.

(3.) The accused pleaded ignorance as to how his wife sustained bleeding the injury. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the silence on the part of the accused as regards injuries sustained by his wife speaks in volumes. However, we have to look to the factual facts/situation as emerged in the F.I.R. (Exhibit 8) which refers that at the material time at 4.00 a.m. in the room of accused and deceased Sarita one Sachin was also present and grandfather in law of the accused had also come in the late night. It is most unfortunate for the prosecution that said Sachin Suresh Pawar who was witness in the matter, is not examined by prosecution under the pretext that summons could not be served to him. Prosecution did not examine other witnesses Suresh Bhimashankar Jadhav and Raju Dharma Ahire without assigning any reasons.