Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.)This Court by Order date 4-5-2001 in this case has rejected the Special Leave Petition preferred by appellants Nos. 1 and 2 for appeal to this Court against their conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 323, 201 read with Section 34 on the Indian Penal Code [for short 'I.P.C.']. This appeal by grant of leave, therefore, is confined to the consideration of the cases of appellants Nos. 3, to 6.
(2.)By the judgment of the Court of additional Sessions Judge, Billoli in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1994, the appellants before us have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC to undergo a sentence of imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, RI for six months. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default, to undergo RI for six months. They are separately convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3 months.
(3.)The victim of the alleged crime is Sunderabai aged about 20 years. Her parents died during her childhood. Her uncle Dashrath (PW 1) brought her up. She was married to convicted accused Taterao, about two years before the date of her death in the intervening night of 22-10-1993 and 23-10-1993. It is alleged that 10 to 12 days before she was found dead, she was beaten by her husband for not attending to the household work and she had gone to complain about it to her cousin, Raosaheb (PW 2). Raosaheb informed the incident to her uncle Dashrath. Both of them saw injuries over the head and back of the deceased. Both of them then took her to her marital home and after pacifying the members of her husband's family, she was left at their place at about 3.00 pm in the afternoon of 22-10-1993. On the next day i.e. 23-10-1993, the co-accused Vithal Tukaram (who is one of the appellants before us) reported to Dashrath, uncle of the deceased that she had gone to fetch water from the bore-well and from there did not return. Dashrath then went to the Police Station to lodge report of the fact of missing of Sundarabai. At that time, one villager Subhash Kondiba (PW 14) came to the Police Station to report that he had seen a dead body floating in the well of sarpanch of the village. The dead body was taken out of the well. After inquest, autopsy was performed. The post-mortem report revealed that there were as many as 15 injuries of the nature of 'contusions' of different sizes on various parts of her body. The cause of death found by the autopsy surgeon was not drowning' but 'strangulation by neck'. On the evidence of Dashrath (uncle of deceased) and Raosaheb (cousin of the deceased) and Ananda More (PW 3) who was (a neighbour of the accused) both the trial Court and the High Court in appeal accepted the prosecution case that the deceased was subjected to physical assaults by members of the family on minor complaints against her in course household work and she was killed by them. Based on the oral evidence and the medical evidence indicating her death to be homicidal, the Courts below came to the conclusion that all the accused participated in the commission of the crime. They were, therefore, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.