MUNIR AHMED SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both Criminal Apeal No. 594 of 1998 and Criminal suo moto Application No. 3 of 1998 arise out of same set of facts and a common impugned Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment, through criminal appeal No. 594 of 1998, the appellant Munir Ahmed Sheikh has challenged the Judgment and order dated 20th June, 1998, passed by the IIIrd Additional sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1997, convicting and sentencing him to undergo five years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo 3 months R. I. for the offence under section 307 IPC. While admitting Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1998, one of us (Vishnu Sahai, J.)issued a notice to the appellant as to why his sentence be not enhanced and Criminal suo motu application no. 3 of 1998 arises from the said notice.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case runs as under : the informant-victim Shipra Babasaheb Dahake PW8 was the original resident of village Bodegaon Taluka Darvha District Yawatmal. She came to Pune for completing her Diploma in Horticulture Garden Education in about 1991 and started staying with her maternal uncle Dilip Valse Patil an M. L. A. and his wife Kiran. The appellant Muneer Shaikh was attached as a PA. to Dilip Valse Patil. An affair between the appellant and Shipra Dahake commenced in the year 1991. But, inspite of that, the appellant married a Muslim girl in the year 1995 on the pressure of his parents. He told her that he would give divorce to his Muslim wife and thereafter, marry her. After completing her Diploma in Horticulture Education, Shipra left for bodegaon but, at the instance of the appellant came to Mumbai sometimes in January, 1996 and the two of them started living as husband and wife in a rented room on Curry Road. They lived there till 26-5-1996. During this period, Shipra Dahake was pressurising the appellant to marry her but, the appellant initially avoided giving the date of marriage but, later on told her that it had been fixed in the last week of may and suggested that they should visit Pune for marketing. Consequently, on 26-5-1996 at about 11. 45 p. m. the two of them proceeded for pune in a Maruti van belonging to one Nivrutti Shinde a friend of the appellant. At about 12. 45 p. m. when they reached near a dhaba, just ahead of Panvel, the appellant offered her chips and asked her whether she would like to take pepsi-drink and on her consenting to take it, he brought a glass containing the said drink. On sipping the drink, she smelt baygon and chided him for bringing the said drink. She told him to take the vehicle back to the owner of the dhaba from where he had brought the drink and to ascertain as to what was mixed in the drink. She also asked him to take a sip from the drink but he threw the same. Thereafter, the appellant took the Maruti van towards karjat side and after driving the same for 15 minutes, stopped it on the ground that he had missed the road. However, instead of taking the Maruti van back, the appellant tried to kiss her and pressed her neck, Whereupon, she raised cries and tried to escape. He then closed the windows of the car; kept her legs on the door of the car; put his legs over her legs; and then took out a rope and tried to strangulate her with it. She tried to take out the rope from around her neck and forcibly tried to come out from the maruti van. The appellant tried to foil this bid of hers with one hand but, she succeeded in coming out from the Maruti van. The appellant also came out, caught hold of her head; and forcibly banged it on the ground. Thereafter, he pressed her neck. She told him to release her and said that she was prepared to go anywhere. But, he kept on insisting that they should go to Pune. She was not ready to go with him. Again, the appellant dragged her to the Maruti van; took out a knife which was kept in the van and when he was about to inflict a blow on her abdomen with the same, she caught hold of it. She took the other hand of the appellant in her mouth. On account of catching the knife, she received injuries on her pal and right hand. She thereafter, fell down the appellant then, inflicted knife blows on left cheek, below chin, left waist and over her chest and below the chest. As a consequence of the knife assault, she became unconscious and blood oozed out from her injuries. Thinking her to be dead, the appellant dragged her aside and threw her in the bushes after removing the ornaments from her person. He then went towards the maruti van. After sometime, he returned. Meanwhile, she had regained consciousness and in order to escape from the clutches of the appellant, decided go behind the bushes. Crawling some distance, she went behind the bushes and went towards the railway track. The appellant tried to find her in torch light but, failed. Near the railway track, one Thakursing Pratapsing Rajput PW 7 noticed her lying. After sometime, a train driven by Madhukar Rane PW 4 came. The gangman signalled to stop the train and on the said train, she was taken to Karjat Railway station which she reached sometimes on the morning of 27-5-1996.

(3.) AT Karjat Railway police station, PSI Mainuddin Jamadar PW 13 of the said police station, immediately referred her to the Rural Hospital, Karjat, where she was medically examined by Medical Officer at 11. 10 a. m. who found on her person three incised wounds and two contused lacerated wound, vide Exhibit 37. Two of the incised wounds were situate on the chest region and one on the left side of cheek. The contused lacerated wounds were situate on the right palm and right middle finger. Since the genuineness of Exhibit 37 was admitted to the defence, the prosecution has not examined the concerned doctor.