Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 15 (BOM)

Tukaram s/o. Sudam Mundhe v. State of Maharashtra

2013-01-03

K.U.CHANDIWAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard. 2. In Sessions Case No.26/2010, the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge recorded conviction for offense under Sections 307, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, 506-II read with Section 34 of IPC, by order dated 18/4/2012. Appellant No.1 Tukaram was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, three years, three years, three years, respectively, on afore referred each count and to pay fine amount. The other appellants (accused nos. 2 to 4) were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for an offense under Sections 307, 498-A, 506-II of IPC. 3. The appeal is admitted on 8th May, 2012. The appellant Tukaram earlier suffered custody. Since he breached bail condition, he was taken in custody and presently he is in custody. The other accused (appellant nos. 2 to 4) are on bail. 4. A development in the matter has taken place. The victim is daughter of appellant no. 1 Tukaram; she was minor, aged around six years at the material time, complainant has patched the relations. 5. Based on incident of assault caused by appellant no.1 allegedly with a knife, coordinated by appellant nos. 2 to 4, FIR vide Crime No.3/2009 dated 7th Jan., 2009, was lodged for offense under Sections 307, 498-A, 506-II read with Section 34 of IPC. 6. In order to establish guilt, evidence of PW No.1 Vandana Tukaram Mundhe, wife of appellant no.1 Tukaram, was recorded. She has narrated the events. She accepted in her cross examination that the injured daughter was carried to the hospital by appellant nos. 2 to 4. She also referred to the matrimonial controversies and the instigation by other accused (accused nos. 2 to 4). She has asserted, there was demand of Rs.20,000/- for purchase of an auto rickshaw. She asserted of suffering fracture, however, did not produce medical evidence. Ten witnesses were examined. 7. After recording conviction, as stated above, affidavit of Smt. Vandana Tukaram Mundhe is tendered. She confirmed of her FIR against Tukaram, her husband, Sudam, her father-in-law, Kausalyabai, her mother-in-law, and Dnyanoba, brother of her husband. She also confirmed that, now, the injured daughter is nine years old. She has patched up her relations, and is staying with family members of her husband. The in-laws are taking care of her children. She has no grievance against either her husband or other accused. 8. She also confirmed that, now, the injured daughter is nine years old. She has patched up her relations, and is staying with family members of her husband. The in-laws are taking care of her children. She has no grievance against either her husband or other accused. 8. This Court, on the basis of the affidavit, nominated Smt. M.B. Vaishnav, amicus curiae, to ascertain nature of injuries suffered by the daughter and also to ascertain grievousness of the same or marks thereof. Mr. Chitnis, appeared for the original complainant, wife of accused no. 1 who submitted in tune to the affidavit, as referred above. 9. Even if the matter is patched up between the couple, however, evidence primarily illustrates that the injured Megha has suffered crush injury, incised wound at her abdomen. There was injury at her thighs and tibia caused due to sharp weapon; it was simple in its character; the same is proved by examination of Medical Officer. 10. Considering evidence of Vandana, it is explicit, major role is played by her husband Tukaram in causing injuries to the daughter. The nature of injuries is simple. Victim was hospitalized for 13 days. It will hardly attract rigours in terms of Section 307 of IPC. 11. The discussion of evidence carried by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of accused nos. 2 to 4, warrants interference as no role virtually is played by the accused nos. 2 to 4. Indeed, they reside separately from the couple. Even if the case of demand is seen, it more leans to the shoulder of appellant no. 1, husband Tukaram. 12. It is indicated that appellant has assaulted or caused hurt to his daughter by an instrument of cutting, which is used as a weapon of offense. Taking overall survey of the matter, the conviction of the appellant Tukaram Sudam Mundhe is altered from Section 307 of IPC to offense under Section 324 of IPC. 13. In the given situation, appeal is partly allowed as under: (a) Conviction of appellant Tukaram Sudam Mundhe is altered from Section 307 of IPC to Section 324 of IPC. For offense under Sections 324, 498-A and 506-II of IPC, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, two months and fifteen days, respectively. For offense under Sections 324, 498-A and 506-II of IPC, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, two months and fifteen days, respectively. (b) Set off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. be extended to him. (c) The appeal of original accused nos. 2 to 4 (Sudam s/o Dattarao Mundhe, Kausalyabai w/o Sudam Mundhe, Dnyanoba s/o Sudam Mundhe) is allowed. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Fine amount, if any, deposited by original accused nos. 2 to 4 (appellant nos. 2 to 4) be refunded to them. Order accordingly. Ordered accordingly.