- (1.) Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2012 has been preferred by appellant / original accused no.1 Gopinath. Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 2013 has been preferred by appellant / original accused no. 2 Nirmala. Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon Raigad in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC. For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, both the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- each in default R.I. for six months. For the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC, both the appellants have been sentenced to R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.500/- each in default R.I. for three months. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, both the appellants shall be referred to as they were referred before the trial Court i.e. Gopinath will be referred to accused no.1 and Nirmala will be referred to as accused no.2.
(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Madhukar was the father of P.W. 7 Prashant and husband of accused no.1 Nirmala. Madhukar was an agriculturist. Madhukar along with his wife accused no.2 Nirmala and son P.W. 7 Prashant were residing within the jurisdiction of Revdanda Police Station. Accused no.2 Nirmala used to sell vegetables on Konkan Railway. Accused no.1 Gopinath was also selling vegetables on Konkan Railway, hence they became acquainted with each other. Accused no.2 Nirmala used to call accused no.1 Gopinath on his cell phone. This was not liked by deceased Madhukar. Quarrels used to take place on account of accused no.2 Nirmala making calls to accused no.1 Gopinath. Madhukar used to insist that his wife accused no.2 Nirmala should not keep contact with accused no.1 Gopinath on cell phone. (ii) It is further the prosecution case that on 24.5.2010 Madhukar was lured by both the accused persons and taken to a place which is situated in Patansai area in Roha. There Madhukar was strangulated to death and his dead body was left in Kalamshet forest. On 29.5.2010 P.W. 1 Govind had gone to Kalamshet forest to graze his goats. He saw the dead body of Madhukar. He did not know the identity of the dead body. He informed this fact to P.W. 2 Ganpat who was Police Patil of the village. Ganpat inturn informed P.W. 3 PSI Wanjale who was attached to Nagothane Police Station. Police came to the spot. Inquest was carried out at the spot. Post-mortem was performed on the dead body. It was found that Madhukar had been strangulated to death. P.W. 12 Dr. Garje conducted the post-mortem. According to him, cause of death was "asphyxia due to strangulation". Thereafter P.W. 3 PSI Wanjale lodged F.I.R. on behalf of the State. The investigation was thereafter taken over by P.W. 15 Vaghachavare. On 8.6.2010 Police Officer Vaghachavare came to know that a missing report was lodged at Revdanda Police Station in relation to Madhukar Patil being missing. He called P.W. 7 Prashant who is the son of deceased Madhukar to the police station and showed him the clothes of the deceased and watch which was found on the spot. Prashant identified the articles to be that of his father. As the dead body was decomposed, blood sample of Prashant was taken which was sent to the C.A. along with D.N.A. sample of deceased Madhukar. D.N.A. reports show that from the bone of the deceased and from the blood sample of Prashant, it can be concluded that the deceased was the biological father of Prashant. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
(3.) Charge came to be framed against both the accused under sections 302 and 201 read with 34 and Section 120-B of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in the present case, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in para 1 above, hence, these appeals.;