SADASHIV BHIMRAO PARIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/original accused has preferred this appeal wherein he has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 30th September, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji in Session Case No.13 of 2005. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/original accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/ in default to undergo S.I. for 15 days.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : The appellant along with his wife and daughter Meenakshi (deceased) was residing at Datta Nagar, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur. Meenakshi(deceased) was the daugher of the appellant. Both the legs of Meenakshi were paralysed. Hence, she was not able to walk and as Meenakshi was handicapped she used to lie on the cot. The mother of Meenakshi used to look after her. The mother of Meenakshi used to do household work. When she went to do household work the appellant used to stay at home to look after Meenakshi. Meenakshi required constant medical treatment. The appellant was fed up of spending money for the treatment of Meenakshi and on account of that he murdered Meenakshi by pressing her neck. This was witnessed by P.W.1 Bandopant Dnyandev Kodale, P.W.2 Sou.Shubhangi Sunil Buchade, P.W.3 Raghunath Vyankappa Dhadoti and P.W.4 Uday Hindurao Kodale. P.W.2 Sou.Shubhangi was the neighbour of the appellant. At about 7.45 P.M. her nephew who was playing on the road came running and told her that father of Meenakshi was standing on the chest of Meenakshi. She rushed to the house of the appellant. She saw that Meenakshi was lying on the cot in supine position and the appellant was standing on her body with one leg on the neck of Meenakshi. She started shouting hence, some persons gathered on the spot. They called Shivsena persons. P.W.3 Raghunath Dhadoti was proceeding to the Shivsena office. At about 7.45 to 8.00 P.M. he saw that four to five ladies were shouting near the house of the appellant. When he went near he saw that the appellant was trampling on the body of his daughter. Raghunath telephoned P.W.1 Bandopant Kodale on his mobile. Bandopant was present in Shivsena office. At that time P.W.5 Rajaram Annappa Chorage was also present in the Shivsena office. Both Bandopant and Rajaram went to the house of the appellant. They saw the accused trampling on the body of his daughter. On seeing them the appellant stated Come Shivsena leader. Are you going to beat me I am tired of spending money in the hospital for my daugher, and therefore, I have killed her. Bandopant told the appellant to step down from the body of his daugher. However, the appellant refused to do so. Bandopant informed the police, who arrived within a few minutes. The police made the appellant step down and took him in custody. Bandopant lodged his F.I.R (Exh.22). Thereafter, investigation commenced. After completion of investigation the chargesheet came to be filed.

(3.) The charge came to be framed against the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and false implication. According to him, he had gone outside the house. He was not present in the house at the time of the incident. When he returned home, he found that Meenakshi was dead. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated by P.W.1 as he refused to enter in the party of P.W.1. Hence, false complaint came to be lodged against him.