SUNIL DAMODHAR GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - Sunil Damodhar Gaikwad was charged for committing murder of his wife and two minor sons. He was charged for attempt to commit murder of his daughter, Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Gayatri. The family of the accused was staying in Dabhade Galli, Gevrai, district Beed. They had accommodation consisting of two rooms in the house which was belonged to his maternal aunt, Mangal. On 8th July, 2008, it is alleged, that the appellant at about 3. 30 a. m. in the mid night of 7th July, 2008 and 8th July, 2008 reached his house after purchasing a scissor. He separated two blades of the scissor. The appellant, it is alleged, first assaulted his wife by giving few blows. Thereafter he gave blows to his son Onkar, aged 9 years and other son, Akash, aged 7 years and thereafter assaulted P. W. 1 Gayatri. The appellant thereafter went to Police Station Gevrai and, it is alleged that, he made a statement before police regarding the incident happened. The police registered the offence under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide crime No. 172/2008. The appellant was arrested there itself. The prosecution further alleged that the spot panchanama (Exhibit 18) was prepared. They found dead bodies of three persons lying in the house. Inquest panchanama of the dead bodies was prepared in presence of two panchas. The dead bodies were removed to the hospital. P. W. 1 Gayatri @ Pooja was found to be alive. P. W. 4 Sakharbai who resides in the neighborhood opened the door of the house of the appellant from outside and went inside. After seeing the ghastly scene she cried for help. Anil, brother of the appellant and uncle of injured Gayatri, also reached the spot and he along with Baban took Gayatri to the hospital. Gayatri was treated in the hospital for 21 days. Her condition was serious. The clothes of the appellant having blood stains were seized and were sent for chemical analysis during the course of investigation. The disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of the appellant was recorded and pursuant to the same, certain clothes of the accused as well as blades of scissor kept under the mattress in the same room were recovered by the police on the same day of the incident. The investigating officer recorded statement of the shop keeper from whom the scissors was purchased by the appellant. Postmortem report was collected. The CA reports were also collected and thereafter charge-sheet was filed.

(2.) THE case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Magistrate on 23rd October, 2008. Since the date of arrest i. e. 8th July 2008 the appellant was in the custody of police. Charge was framed on 12th february, 2009 (Exhibit 5) under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty. As the appellant showed his inability to engage a private lawyer, by an order dated 29th January, 2009 passed below Exhibit 1 in Sessions Case No. 118 of 2008, the learned sessions Judge Beed allowed the request of the appellant for appointment of an Advocate by way of legal aid, as according to the appellant, he did not have source of income to engage a private lawyer. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter appointed Advocate Sow Hema Pimpale to defend the appellant and directed the prosecution to furnish a set of relevant papers to the learned Advocate free of cost.

(3.) THE prosecution filed an application under section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure calling upon the defence to admit or deny the genuineness of 13 documents at exhibit 45/c. From the original record we could not notice that say was filed by the defence to this application filed by the prosecution.