GULAB SADASHIV MADGULKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced to RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer RI for three months each, have preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is as follows : THE appellants are original accused Nos. 3 and 4 who along with other two accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged with the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC by the Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 192 of 1991 with regard to the incident which took place on 28th May 1991 between 9 a. m. to 10 a. m. in the field known as Nasalemala in Village Madgul, Dist. Sangli in which one Ashok Tukaram Madgule (Nasale) had died. THE deceased was assaulted by means of sticks by the accused persons. All the accused were residents of village Madgul, Tal. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli. Original accused No. 1 Ganpati was working as PSI while accused No. 2 Rajaram was a Supervisor in Soil Conservation Department at Atpadi. THE present appellants, who were original accused Nos. 3 and 4, are the agriculturists from the said village. THE deceased and his father Tukaram Nasle i. e. one of the prosecution witnesses were also residents of the said village. THE accused as well as the complaint's side were staying in a place called Nasalewadi. THE marriage of accused No. 1 Ganpati, who was serving in Bombay as PSI, took place before the incident on 21st May 1991 at Dhule. THE accused had arranged a vehicle for taking their relatives to Dhule for the purpose of marriage. After the marriage a reception called "jagaran" was arranged at village Mudgul on 25-5-91. A day prior thereto the relatives and the villagers had assembled in the house of the accused to prepare the sweets. Deceased Ashok also had been to the house of the accused on the previous night. It is alleged that when on the night of 24th May 1991 Sangita, wife of Appellant No. 1, was sleeping in a room in their house, deceased Ashok had touched her body and tried to outrage her modesty. Sangita did not disclose about the incident to anybody else on that night. Following day the diner took place. It appears that subsequently Sangita related about the said incident to her husband appellant no. 1. Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2, therefore, called deceased Ashok and his father and questioned them about the incident.

(3.) THE Sessions Court framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty. THE defence of the appellant No. 1 is that when he was told about the incident of outraging the modesty of his wife by deceased Ashok on the night of 27-5-91 he questioned Ashok as to why he had caught hand of his wife. Deceased Ashok then started speaking in filthy language about the character of his wife and, therefore, he got angry. That time Appellant No. 2 also came and when he learnt about the same he also beat deceased with sticks. Similar is the defence of Appellant No. 2 - Namdeo. He specifically stated that he gave four to five strokes with the stick on the legs of Ashok when he saw the scuffle between his brother Appellant No. 1 Ganpati and deceased Ashok and learnt the reason for the same.