DINESH VASANT BHOYAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dinesh Vasant Bhoyar
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
B. R. Gavai, J. -
(1.) The appeal challenges the judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pandharkawada in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2011 thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The prosecution case, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus :
Accused Dinesh was married to deceased Vaishali. They are blessed with two children namely Nisarga aged about 7 years and Chirag aged about 5 years. They were residing at village Durgapur, Tq.Zari Jamni, District Yavatmal. It is the prosecution case that the accused used to illtreat the deceased under the influence of liquor. He also had suspicion on her character. On number of occasions, she was driven out. However, on account of intervention of elders and in order to take care of welfare of the children, the deceased continued to reside with the accused. On 20.10.2010, at around 10 a.m., Nagorao Dhen-gale, brother of deceased received information from one Shriram Bhoyar that Vaishali got burnt and she was shifted to Rural Hospital, Zari. She was given certain preliminary treatment at Zari and thereafter, on medical advice, she was shifted to Yavatmal. Deceased died in the intervening night of 24th October, 2010 and 25th October, 2010. The First Information Report came to be lodged by Nagorao Dhengale (PW1) on 27.10.2010. On the basis of oral report of Nagorao (PW1), the F.I.R. was registered. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Zari. Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge, it came to be transmitted to the Court of Sessions at Pandharkawada. Charges were framed below Exh.9. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge passed the order of conviction and sentence, as aforesaid.
(3.) With the assistance of the learned A.P.P. and the learned Counsel for the appellant, we have scrutinized the evidence on record.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.