V.M. Kanade, J.@mdashHeard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant and the learned APP for the State. The Appellant, who is the original accused, has filed this appeal, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag dated 22nd September, 2005. By the said judgment and order, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-and, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The Appellant was also convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 309 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the Appellant got married with deceased Laxmibai 11 years prior to the date of the incident and stayed along with his wife and two children Darshana and Subhash. The prosecution case is that the Complainant, who is the father of the Appellant-accused left the house for the purpose of taking his goats for grazing. His daughter-in-law went to the lake for washing clothes and for taking bath. She was accompanied with her children. According to the Complainant, he heard cries of his grand-children and, therefore, he went near the lake and he was found that his daughter-in-law was lying dead and his son had made an attempt to commit suicide by causing injury to himself with scythe on his neck. According to the prosecution case, the Complainant carried the dead body of Laxmibai to his house and, thereafter, brought Vasant -Appellant herein to the house. He immediately informed one Amol Desai and asked him to contact the police. Accordingly, the police came to the spot and made an arrangement to take the accused to the hospital. Post-mortem examination of Laxmibai was performed and doctor gave an opinion that the death of Laxmibai had occurred due to cardio respiratory arrest due to hypovolemic shock due to injuries to vital vessels like carotid arteries and jugular veins of both the sides. In the meantime, the Appellant, who was taken to the hospital, tried to escape but he was arrested immediately. The accused had a contused lacerated wound on the back of his neck and incised wound on the anterior aspect of the neck.
3. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has taken us through the judgment and order of the Trial Court and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. She submitted that there is infirmity in the evidence of the eye witnesses which clearly shows that the said witnesses who were not telling the truth. She submitted that the witnesses had tried to falsely implicate the Appellant. She submitted that the motive was not established by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that the conviction in any manner would not be maintained u/s 302 of the IPC and at the highest the Appellant could be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part (II) of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has justified in convicting the Appellant.
6. After going through the evidence, in our view, the Trial Court was justified in convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. It is not in dispute that death of Laxmibai was unnatural and homicidal. The doctor who performed the post-mortem, has clearly stated that the cause of death of Laxmibai was due to injury on the neck, and her death was homicidal and could be caused by the scythe. In the present case the prosecution examined the father of the Appellant-PW-1 Kusha Murkute. Though initially a statement of this witness did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile and, thereafter, in the cross examination he admitted that he has seen the accused with the scythe and he has tried to cut his own throat. He has also stated that the Appellant Vasant had informed that he inflicted injuries on the neck of his wife with scythe. This testimony of the witness was not shaken in the cross examination by the counsel for the accused. PW-2 is the son of the Appellant Subhash Vasant Murkute. He has also supported the prosecution case and he has stated that he seen his father assaulting his mother with scythe on her neck. He also stated that thereafter he assaulted himself on his neck. He also stated in his statement about the presence of the accused at the spot. The testimony of the PW-1-father of the Appellant, therefore, corroborates with the testimony of the PW-2, the son of the Appellant. Spot panchanama has been proved by the PW-3 Vasant Bendu Waghmare. PW-4 Govind Sonu Pawar has deposed that the house of the complainant is at a distance of only 12 to 15 ft. from the lake. PW-6-Suresh Maruti Utekar has stated that the accused used to suspect the character of his wife and used to beat her. He further stated that because of the conduct of the accused, the panchayat of village was called by the accused, a couple of years back before the said incident and the accused was asked to behave properly with his wife. PW-7 was declared hostile. PW-8 - Vijay Mohan Hastiskar -Police Inspector attached to the Pali Police Station has investigated the said offence. From the aforesaid evidence, it can be seen that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is not seriously disputed that the death of Laxmibai was homicidal. It is also established that the Appellant had tried to commit suicide by inflicting injuries on his throat and neck with the scythe. There are two eye witnesses to the said incident viz. son of the Appellant (PW-2) and the father of the Appellant (PW-1), who both have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the witnesses are interested witnesses is without any substance since PW-1 is the father of the Appellant and the other eye witness PW-2 is his son. There is no reason why the testimonies of these witnesses should be disbelieved who were most natural witnesses for the incident occurred. It has also come on record that the Appellant used to suspect the character of the deceased and there used to be a quarrel between them on account of suspicious nature of the Appellant. It has also come on record that initially the Appellant and deceased were staying at the house of the deceased in another village and after 11 years they had returned to the house of the Appellant. The testimonies of the eye witnesses have been corroborated by the medical evidence which clearly supports the versions of the two eye witnesses. There is no absolutely no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons while coming to the conclusion that the Appellant was the author of the injuries which were found on the person of the deceased. There is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. Criminal Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
