ANITA BHOLANATH WANJARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8th September 2009, delivered by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.58/2002, convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months.

(2.) The prosecution version as unfolded during the trial can be summarized as under :

(3.) At the relevant time, ASI Pandurang Rangari (PW3) was attached to Pachpaoli Police Station. On 4.6.2001, he proceeded to Mayo Hospital for recording the dying declaration of Mangala. He obtained permission of the doctor concerned for recording the same vide requisition Exh.20. He then recorded the dying declaration of Mangala(Exh.37). On the basis of the said dying declaration, PW7 API-Surajmal Baghel registered the offence vide Cr.No. 263/2001. PW7 then visited the place of incident and recorded the spot panchnama (Exh.71). From the place of incident, he took charge of the burnt pieces of clothes, plastic can and burnt pieces of blanket. On 5.6.2001, the Special Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of Mangala vide Exh.4 On 7.6.2001 while being medically treated, Mangala expired. PW9 PSI Ramdas Parteki recorded the inquest panchnama on the dead body of Mangala vide Exh.27. He sent the dead body for autopsy. The statements of the witnesses came to be recorded by the police. Since the police did not arrest the appellant and there was no progress in the investigation, the father of deceased PW4-Panjabrao Bhende, filed a Writ Petition in this Court. As per the direction of this Court, the appellant came to be arrested on 22.12.2001. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned JMFC Nagpur. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant was that as Mangala was suffering from epilepsy, she was dejected with her life and due to the said reason, she committed suicide. On analysis of the evidence and after hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid.