STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VIJAY DHONDIRAM SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, the State of Maharashtra has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 30/07/2002 passed by the learned III Ad-hoc Asstt. Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.73 of 2002. The Respondent No.1 was the original accused no.1. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are his parents. All the accused were charged for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of the IPC. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit all of them. The State of Maharashtra has preferred this Appeal against the said Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Though the Appeal was preferred against all the accused, the Appeal was specifically admitted as against the Respondent No.1 who was the original accused no.1.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the deceased Nanda was married to the Respondent No.1 on 01/07/1998. They had a daughter from the wedlock. It is the case of the prosecution that Nanda was ill-treated by all the accused on the ground that she was not cooking properly and also on the ground that the Respondent No.1 was having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law i.e. wife of his brother. It was alleged that the accused no.1 wanted to take divorce from Nanda. As per the prosecution case, on 05/06/2001, Nanda's grandfather and maternal cousin had visited her at her matrimonial house and they found that a quarrel was going on between all the accused and Nanda. The grandfather and her cousin tried to pacify the parties and then they left from there. It is the prosecution case that in the late evening, Nanda's grandfather received a telephone call that Nanda had consumed poison. Therefore, they again came back to her village i.e. Manerajuri. When they reached there, they found that she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Sangli where she had already expired. On the next day at about 5.00 p.m., FIR was lodged by PW 1 Bhau Kale who was the maternal grandfather of the deceased. The investigation was carried out. Postmortem was conducted. Viscera report showed presence of poison. The accused nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 08/06/2001. The accused no.3 had obtained anticipatory bail, subsequently. At the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) The charge was framed against all the three accused under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of the IPC. All the accused pleaded 'not guilty' to the charge.