JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.:---This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 29-4-2003, by the IVth ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2002, whereunder the appellant Muktabai w/o Mahadeo Andhale was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under section 307 of India Penal Code.

2. The prosecution against the appellant was initiated on the basis of complaint lodged by the victim Sheelabai (P.W. 4) at Police Station Dindrud, for which offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was registered at C.R. No. 81 of 2001, in regard to an incident that took place on 4-7-2001, wherein the victim came to be assaulted by the appellant by means of knife inflicted in all six injuries as detailed in the certificate Exh. 22 issued by Dr. Momin (P.W. 3) who examined victim in Medical Hospital, Beed. Admittedly, the victim Sheelabai and the accused Muktabai are co-wives having married to one Mahadeo Andhale who was resident of village Salimba, Taluka Wadwani, District Beed. It is a matter of record that the accused Muktabai was say to say senior wife having two children born of her husband Mahadeo. But, it appears that since after victim Sheelabai was brought to matrimonial home by Mahadeo, Muktabai and her daughters were not maintained and as a result of that, Muktabai was required to initiate proceedings for maintenance against Mahadeo. That is how the basis or the object or the motive for Muktabai to assault Sheelabai was the belief of the appellant Muktabai that her husband was avoiding to pay maintenance to Muktabai and her daughters at the behest of the victim Sheelabai.

3. As per prosecution case, on 4-7-2001, complainant along with her sons had been to the field, taking rest after having lunch under a tamarind three and it was at about 3.00 p.m. when complainant was in sleep, appellant Muktabai at once assaulted her with knife with assistance of her daughter Meera. As soon as the first blow was received, Sheelabai raised shouts and while trying to save herself the appellant inflicted blows on her person causing multiple injuries. The victim was taken to Civil Hospital, Beed, where her statement was recorded vide Exh. 24, which was treated as complaint and then after the offence was registered the investigation in the matter was carried out by P.S.I. Padale (P.W. 7). During the course investigation, the Investigating Officer made spot Panchanama Exh. 19 and that time knife came to be seized from the place of occurrence and the appellant was arrested on 5-7-2001. The clothes of the victim came to be seized under Panchanama Exh. 29. The articles seized were sent to Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad for examination. After the receipt of report of Chemical Analyser Exhs. 37 and 38 and completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Beed.

4. Before the trial Court, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses, including complaint Sheelabai (P.W. 4), eye-witness Manohar (P.W. 2), Dr. Momin (P.W. 3) and Investigating Officer P.S.I. Padale (P.W. 7). It may be noted that the defence of the accused was that she had filed maintenance suit against her husband in which compromise had taken place and in pursuance of that she was taken to matrimonial home, but thereafter her husband, to avoid payment of maintenance to her, filed a false case against her with the help of complainant. The trial Court has rightly rejected the defence. It may be noted further that the factum of injuries sustained by the victim is not disputed. Apart from that, on the evidence of complainant and witness Manohar, coupled with medical evidence of Dr. Momin (P.W. 3), the factum of injuries sustained

Click Here to Read the rest of this document