GANESH S O YADAVRAO BHUTEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-130
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 30,2004

GANESH YADAVRAO BHUTEKAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD Mr. Anand Jaiswal, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Lanjewar, learned A. P. P. for the respondent. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 20-11-2003 passed by the 1st ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in sessions Trial No. 99/2001 against appellant, convicting him for offences under sections 304-B and 498-A of I. P. C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under section 304-B, I. P. C. , while no separate sentence was awarded for offence under section 498-A, I. P. C.
(2.) THE appellant Ganesh along with his parents - Yadavrao and Sau. Shashikala and his brother Chandrakant was tried for offence under sections 304-B, 306,498-A and 506 read with section 34 of I. P. C. in respect of incident that took place on 17-07-2001 when the victim sharda (wife of appellant - Ganesh) died suicidal death due to consuming poison. Sharda was daughter of witness - Parashram (P. W. 2)and Shantabai (P. W. 3 ). Witness - Sanjay (P. W. 2) is her cousin while witness Eknath shelke (P. W. 4) was her uncle. Admittedly she was married to appellant - Ganesh about ll/2 year before her death. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant demanded rs. 3,000/- after about six months of marriage and witness - Parashram gave that amount to appellant. But thereafter, the appellant, his parents and brother started ill-treating Sharda to force her to bring amount of Rs. 10,000/- from her father for purchasing Auto Rickshaw. When parashram came to know, he brought Sharda to his village - Dhandarwadi. While Sharda was with her parents about 2 months before appellant's brother Yadavrao and his in-laws had assured to treat Sharda well and therefore, parashram sent Sharda with them to her matrimonial home. After about 8 days, appellant - Ganesh had demanded Rs. 10,000/-and Parashram gave him that amount. It is the case of prosecution that on 11-07-2001 the appellant - Ganesh met Parashram at Sindkhed raja and again demanded an amount of rs. 10,000/ -. But that time Parashram could not satisfy demand of Ganesh as he had no money. When Parashram told so to Ganesh, the latter retorted hinting threat to Parashram that he should see what would happen within a week. On 17-07-2001 at about 8. 00 a. m. Parashram was informed that his daughter Sharda was vomiting. The driver of the Jeep who was sent for Parashram and his family members, disclosed that Sharda committed suicide by consuming poison. Parashram along with his family members went to Palaskhed Malakdev where he came to know that the appellant and his parents and brother ill-treated Sharda and administered poison.
(3.) WHEN Sharda expired in the hospital information was given to Police Station on the basis of which accidental death was registered. The Police Officer reached and drew inquest panchanama - Exhibit 19 and Sharda's dead body was sent for postmortem. The spot panchanama Exhibit 18 was drawn. Bottle containing Endosalfan which was found at the place where she was lying came to be attached in presence of panchas. Medical Officer conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sharda and prepared postmortem notes - Exhibit 23 wherein he gave his opinion that probable cause of death was insecticide consumption. No external or internal injury was noticed on the body. Parashram gave report Exhibit 31, on the basis of which the first information report exhibit 32 was drawn and offence was registered. Viscera bottles and bottle containing insecticide were forwarded to Forensic Science laboratory, Nagpur for analysis. After receiving reports - Exhibits 43 and'44 and on completion of investigation the charge-sheet was filedin the court of J. M. F. C. ,deulgaon Raja who in turn committed the case to the Court of sessions for trial. Before the Sessions Court when charge was framed vide Exhibit 11, the accused persons including appellant adjured plea and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of total denial and false implication.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.