AJAY PANDURANG SONAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision application is taken up for final hearing. This application takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 13. 11. 2007 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2004 and judgment and order dated 29th July 2003 passed by the learned 6th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions case No. 168/2003.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has invited my attention to the grounds taken in the revision and on that basis submitted that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and it came to the wrong conclusion. Therefore, the present revision application deserves to be allowed.

(3.) The Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon has properly appreciated the evidence brought on record. The Court has observed that it is not disputed position that the deceased Surekha was mentally retarded on account of disease of epilepsy. The learned Judge has relied on the evidence of PW 1 Muktabai, mother of the decease and PW 3 Lahu Sonawane along with evidence of PW 10 C. H. Gaud, PW 11 I. O. , PSI Chavan, PW8 Dr. Teli and PW 9 Dr. Chavan. Doctor who performed post-mortem on the body of deceased Surekha on 1. 7. 2003 found that Surekha was carrying pregnancy of 8 to 8 and half months. Her organs of generation were swollen and, therefore, doctor was of the opinion that Surekha died due to toxaemia of pregnancy. The doctor collected sample of vaginal swab, blood of deceased and blood of foetus for chemical analysis. Accordingly, post-mortem notes Exhibit-27 was prepared and samples taken were handed over to police for being sent to Chemical Analyser. On analysis, it was found by this expert witness that accused Ajay was the biological father of the child found in the womb of deceased Surekha. It is observed by the learned Judge that PW 1 mother of the deceased has stated that taking undue advantage of mental disorder of her daughter accused had forcibly intercourse with her as a result of that intercourse deceased had developed pregnancy and had succumbed to death on account of toxaemia. The doctor Teli who carried out post-mortem on the body of deceased had taken the blood samples of deceased and foetus were taken for chemical analysis. Undisputedly, deceased at the time of post-mortem was carrying pregnancy. The blood sample of foetus was also taken, According to PW 9 Dr. Chavan on 14. 10. 2003 blood sample of accused was taken by him for analysis in the presence of J. M. F. C. Chalisgaon vide request letter of police Exhibit-29. The blood samples were handed over to police constable and same were forwarded to laboratory. These samples as collected were received by PW 10 C. H. Gaud along with identification form Exhibit 36. Recitals of said identification form would demonstrate that it bears photographs of accused Ajay. The learned Judge has observed that this shows that the accused was not forced by police to give consent for drawing of blood samples by Dr. Chavan. There was no compulsion for accused to consent for drawing blood sample during course of investigation for purpose of analysis.