RAMESH NAHYA KAKAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the order of conviction and sentence dated 08.12.2004 passed by the learned First Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge at Palghar, Dist. Thane in Sessions Case No.21/99. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and in addition to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ or in default thereof to suffer R.I. for 3 months more. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(1) of IPC. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The appellant is presently undergoing the sentence.

(2.) As per the prosecution, the appellant Ramesh is the son of Mahya Kakad, resident of Karanjgaon, Thakarpada, Tal.Talasari and he was married to Vanjubaibai, the daughter of Jivan Parle resident of Vevji, Karlepada, Tal Talasari, sometimes in the year 1988. The couple did not have a child and it is alleged that on that count, the appellant was unhappy with his wife as she could not bear a child for him. Both of them were staying in the house of Jivan and about two months prior to the incident, the appellant had gone to stay in his village where he had his parents i.e. on 25th August, 1998, the appellant left his father in law's house and went to Karajgaon. On the next day, Sakhu (PW1), the wife of Vanjubais brother wanted to visit her parents in village Karajgaon and, therefore, she came to Karajgaon along with Vanjubai at about 10.00 a.m. Vanjubai went to the house of the appellant, whereas Sakhu went to her mothers house and the distance between the two houses is claimed to be about a kilometer. After sometime, Sakhu heard the shouts of Vanjubai and, therefore, she went to her house along with Gulab Vartha PW 3 and Gulab Devji Malavkar PW 4 and they saw that the accused was assaulting his wife. He was abusing her as she could not give a child to him. He was told not to beat her by Sakhu and her companions, but there was no heed. Sometime later, he became quite and, therefore, Sakhu and her companions went back. On the next day i.e. on 27.8.1998, Sakhu came to know that Vanjubai was dead. A message was sent to Jivan PW 2 and he came to village Karajgaon. He saw the dead body of his daughter in the house of the accused, where his parents were also present and he was told that she had hanged herself. The police arrived at the scene at 5.00 p.m. 27.8.1998 and inquest panchanama Exh.28 and spot panchanama Exh.29 were recorded in the presence of ChanduMorghaPW5 and Ratnya Dodka PW 6 as the panch witnesses. PW 2 Jivan went to the Talasari Police Station, where his statement was recorded (Exh.24) and the same was registered at about 4.00 p.m. On the next day, PW 1 lodged a complaint with the Talasari police station and the same was registered as a FIR on 29.5.1998 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 506 of IPC against the appellant and alleging that he committed the murder of his wife Vanjubai by causing severe injuries on her body including her head. The appellant came to be arrested on 13.9.1998 and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 11.12.1998. The case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Sessions Court on 08.02.1999. Charge was framed on 17.7.2002 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 506 of IPC against the appellant and the appellant pleaded as not guilty. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied the charges and claimed that prosecution had filed a false case against him. In the meanwhile, Vanjubais dead body was sent for postmortem to the Medical Officer of Cottage Hospital on 27.8.1998 by the police. Chemical Analysis report was received at Exh.41 and 42. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses including PW 7 Mahya Kakad, the father of the appellant and Vikas Vasalkar PW 8, the Investigating Officer.

(3.) It is pertinent to note at this stage itself that the prosecution did not examine the Medical Officer who conducted atopsy on the mortal remains on Vanjubai and further the post mortem report, if any, was not brought on record. Thus, there was no evidence available before the trial Court and which evidence could be relied to hold that Vanjubai died an unnatural death and further that it was a homicidal death. Even the trial Court did not frame such an issue. The trial court framed the following two issues, namely;