SUNDERLAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 24th July 1991 rendered in sessions Trial No. 105 of 1991 by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby the accused-appellant Sundarlal has been convicted for the offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused Sundarlal has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 IPC whereas for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The accused Sundarlal has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1991 challenging his conviction and sentence whereas the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 1991 challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) AS per prosecution version, accused Sundarlal is resident of village Kandri Mines which comes under the jurisdiction of Manaar out-post which is under Ramtek Police Station. He married with Gita - the deceased - some 10 years before her death. He had two children - one daughter Aruna aged about 9 years and one younger son. Shamlal and Ramabai are parents of Geeta, residing at village Borkhedi - a place situated at one hours distance by bus from Kandri Mines. As per prosecution story, accused Sundarlal and his wife Gita had been to Delhi for taking part in some political agitation near about Dasera festival and had returned to Nagpur before Diwali festival of 1990. It is alleged that the relations between two had become some what strained due to squabbling between then and unfaithfulness between them had increased after their arrival from Delhi because the accused did not like his wifes conduct of staring at one Daroga during the journey. He was suspecting immorality on her part. During their sojourn at Delhi Shamlal - father of the deceased - had come to Kandri Mines for taking care of the children. After the arrival of the accused and his wife also Shamlal stayed in their house for 2 or 3 days more during which period, it is alleged, there was quarrel in between the accused and Gita and the accused had tried to throttle her by pressing her neck. Complaint was lodged to the police about this incident. Thereafter Shamlal had gone to his village Borkhedi. About 3 or 4 days thereafter the accused came to Borkhedi with his children. On being asked as to why children alone were brought and why Gita had not come, the accused had told that she was busy in work and would be coming after 4 to 8 days. The accused had then gone back. Shamlal and his wife Ramabai enquired with the children about Gita. They told them that they were not aware as to where their mother had gone and that the accused had taken them to village Kaichi for searching their mother. Ramabai then went to village Kandri Mines to search for Gita after about 2 days and then went to Mansar Police Station for giving report, but the Police had told her to bring the children of Gita for lodging the report. Shamlal then went to Kandri with the children and when he visited the house of Gita, he found the police having already arrived there. Shamlal lodged oral report Ex. 30. As per prosecution version, the accused was absconding and ultimately was arrested on 2-11-1990. PW 9 PSI Tripathi visited the house of Sundarlal and from the ugly odour suspected that Gita must have been buried near the house. He first dug at one place where he found hair of lady with little flesh. Then he searched in front of the house within compound known as Badi and found big ditch covered with soil. He got that ditch dug and found legs of human being. Since it was late hours in the evening, he again covered that pit with soil. He then asked Shamlal to lodge another report of occurrence at Kandri Mines and also recorded statements of several persons and secured permission from the Executive Magistrate to dig. On the next day in the morning in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and others he dug the spot and took out the body of Gita from the ditch. The body was completely decomposed and hence post-mortem was conducted on the spot itself. After completing the necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of J. M. F. C. Ramtek for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 I. P. C. and the matter was then committed to the Court of Sessions at Nagpur.

(3.) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him under Section 302 and 201 I. P. C. and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses, inter-alia deceased Gitas parents PW 1 Shamlal and PW 3 Ramabai, her daughter PW 4 Aruna and one Panch witness PW 2 Laxman, PW 7 Gangadhar and PW9 Tripathi, Investigation Officer. The other witnesses are Medical Officers and Police Officers. The defence of the accused was that of total denial, saying that Gita was missing and that he did not know anything as to who killed her and buried her where she was found. He stated that he was searching her since her missing and that he had no strained relations with her. The trial Court, on appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution held that the accused was responsible for causing the injury of fracture of 7th vertebra of the deceased and laceration on neck till Gita died, but held that he had no intention to cause the death. However, attributing knowledge to the accused that his act of causing injuries to the deceased would likely to cause the death, he held him guilty for the offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 I. P. C. He also found that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC by burying the dead body and not disclosing the information to any body with intention to screen himself and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.