SHIVAJIRAO DATTU BHOSALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions judge Satara in Session Case No. 196 of 1995. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant has been held guilty under Section 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, in addition to the fine to be paid and in default for further imprisonment as specified in the impugned judgment and order. The appellant has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 and 201 of I. P. Code. The accused was arrested on 27th of July, 1995 and during pendency of the trial, the appellant was released on bail. However, consequent to the impugned judgment and order, he was re-arrested to undergo the sentence imposed under the impugned order.

(2.) The appellant was married to deceased Rani on 12th of December, 1989. At the time of marriage and even thereafter for a period of two years, the appellant continued to be unemployed, while Rani, who was in first year of Arts faculty at the time of the marriage, continued her study and completed post-graduation after marriage. Two years after the marriage, the appellant was able to secure job as a lecturer at Satara. After one year of his service as lecturer, he was transferred to umbraj, which is also in the district of Satara. While the appellant was employed as lecturer in a college at Umbraj, it is the case of the prosecution that, he developed love affair with a girl student from the same college. For the sake of brevity, we would refer the concerned girl as the said girl. Meanwhile wife of the appellant delivered a male child in the year 1994. In June, 1995 the appellant was transferred to Koregaon which is also situated in the district of Satara. The appellant on account of his transfer at Koregaon, hired a premises on lease from one Sunil Bharate at koregaon and continued to reside therein since july, 1995 along with his family.

(3.) The impugned judgment is sought to be challenged firstly on the ground that the drastic alterations made in the charge framed against the appellant has resulted in great prejudice and denial of fair opportunity to the appellant to meet the case of the prosecution. Secondly, that there is absolutely no evidence in relation to the charge under Section 498-A of I. P. Code and in any case the allegation regarding the alleged illicit relations with the said girl cannot be construed as cruelty within the meaning of 498-A of I. P. C. Thirdly the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the alleged guilt, and fourthly that there is no cogent evidence on record in the form of chain of events leading to the only hypothesis about the guilt of the appellant and the sole testimony of PW-2 does not find any corroboration from the evidence on record. While canvassing these grounds, the learned senior counsel for the appellant also submitted that the trial Court failed to consider in proper perspective the evidence led by the appellant about the impossibility of the appellant's involvement in the alleged offence.