BAJIRAO BHIMAJI DAFAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the judgment dated 25th September, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 95 of 1995, the appellant. Bajirao Bhimaji Daphal and another accused Tukaram Shripati daphal were tried for the offence under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. Both the appellant and the other accused were convicted and sentenced under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R. I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default R. I. for two months. The accused No. 1 is alone before us challenging the said judgment in this appeal. Therefore, we are not considering the conviction of the second accused Tukaram Shripati Dafal in this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that Kaluram Tambe and Shashikala Tambe were staying in a farm house at village hivare with their children. Shashikala s parents stay at dhamari, Taluka Shirur. Kaluram s mother and other family members stay at Hivare but in the village gaothan. On 6-11-1994, Shashikala came alone to the house of her parents. Her mother Babubai made enquiries with her about her children, whereupon she told her mother that she had a quarrel with her husband Kaluram. On further inquiry Shashikala told that kaluram was suspecting her character for her relations with one Bajirao Daphal i. e. appellant, who according to shashikala, had illicit relations with her and wanted shashikala to succumb to his wishes. Her parents then send a person to fetch children of Shashikala. Shashikala stayed with her parents for about two days and left for her materimonial house. One Indubai, i. e. mother in law of shashikala was working in the field when Shashikala arrived in the farm house. Shashikala s husband Kaluram was grazing bullocks near the brooklet After Shashikala came into the house, Kaluram also returned to the house and there was a quarrel between both of them. Out of curiosity, Indubai and her daughter Mandubai entered the house of Kaluram and asked shashikala why there was a quarrel. Shashikala did not answer. However, Kaluram told them that Shashikala was not behaving properly and had illicit relations with Bajirao i. e. appellant. Indubai and Mandubai tried to pacify them. Shashikala then requested Indubai to send a tiffin for them to the farm, as according to her, she was in her menses. Indubai and Mandubai then went home, prepared food and brought a tiffin for Shashikala and Kaluram. While Indubai was bringing the tiffin, she saw accused No. 2 Tukaram standing near the brooklet. When she went to the house of kaluram, she found that Kaluram was not in the house and she saw appellant Bajirao coming out of the house. Indubai then made inquiries with Shashikala about the presence of appellant Bajirao but she did not reply. She gave the tiffin to Shashikala and returned. Next day morning, she went to the fields and found a sheep belonging to Kaluram wandering around the house. The house was latched from outside. She thought that Kaluram and Shashikala must have gone somewhere and would return within short time. She therefore lethered the sheep. She wanted to have water and, therefore, thought it fit to open the door and take some water from the house of Kaluram. She, therefore, unlatched the door and was wonder struck to find that the bodies of Kaluram and shashikala mere lying in pool of blood. She then shouted and fell down. Her nephew came and helped her to go to the village. People then gathered and a message was sent to the parents of Shashikala. Shashikala s parents arrived after receipt of the message and they were in grief to know about the murder of their daughter and son-in-law. By that time, police arrived. Accordingly offence was registered under crime no. 85 of 1994 and investigation started.

(3.) P. W. 9 Shri Mohite Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence on 9-11-1990 at about 4. 00 p. m. Inquest panchanama was made. He had made arrangement to guard the house and to see that nobody is allowed to enter. He made inquest panchanama. He recorded statements of Indubai, mandubai, Tanaji etc. The dead bodies were sent for post-mortem. A. S. I. Pawar produced the clothes on the person of the deceased before him where they were seized under panchanama Exh. 22. On 11th he recorded the statements of witnesses Hanumant Ranpise and others. On 12-11-1994 he arrested the suspected accused Bajirao and Tukaram at 16. 00 hrs. While in custody accused Tukaram made a disclosure persuant to which panchanama Exh. 29 was recorded. According to information given by accused Tukaram. Investigating officer proceeded along with the panchas to village Hivare. Accused Tukaram asked them to stop the vehicle. They all went in the house. Accused produced blade (fas) from the attic of the said house. The house was of the deceased. The blade was seized and sealed under panchanama Exh. 30. Then in his evidence P. W. 9 says that the disclosure made by appellant in the presence of panchas that he will produce knife and clothes which was reduced in writing and which is at Exh. 35. Appellant Bajirao then took them to his house. He produced the clothes and the knife from between the roof (valchan ). Accordingly panchanama is prepared which is at exh. 36. On 11-12-1994 the articles were sent to C. A. by letter. After investigation charge-sheet was laid before the concerned magistrate who in turn committed the case of trial to the sessions Court. Before the Sessions Court, the appellant and other accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After trial the appellant and other accused were convicted and awarded sentence as indicated in the opening paragraph of the judgment.