The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, considering the credibility of witness testimonies and the surrounding circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

V. G. BISHT, J.

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case no. 134 of 1997 on 29/08/1998, convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Court (for short “IPC”) and sentencing her to undergo life imprisonment, for the offence under Section 302 and further sentencing her to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 309 of the IPC.

2. Facts of the case in brief is that the informant, a PSI, at the relevant time was posted at Nashik Rural Division, Nashik. On 08/06/1997 he received a message from SDPO to enquire ADR No. 10/97 registered under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) and accordingly he along with staff members visited the spot and came to know that master Dyaneshwar, aged 3 years, kum. Rupali, aged 1½ year and their mother Radhabai had fallen into a well. All were taken out from the well, however, the children were dead while their mother namely, Radhabai survived and taken to Civil Hospital for treatment.

3. The informant accordingly prepared the inquest panchanama over dead body of those children and sent them for postmortem. He also recorded statements of various witnesses and it transpired from their statements that because of the ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of husband and parents-in-law, said Radhabai in order to commit suicide had jumped into the well along with her two children.

4. The informant accordingly lodged the report against the accused. On the basis of his report C.R.No. 26/97 under Sections 302, 309 of the IPC came to be registered and after necessary investigation the accused was chargesheeted.

5. The accused abjured her guilt and pleaded false implication. In support of her defence, she also examined defence witness, namely, Haushiram Magan Jadhav.

6. Mr. Chomal, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted that the prosecution evidence suffers from various contradictions and inconsistencies. According to learned counsel there was no reason for the accused to kill her children and to attempt suicide. Rather, it has come on record that the accused was enjoying happy married life sans ill-treatment as is canvased by the prosecution. The learned trial Court in the circumstances wrongly recorded conviction against the accused, argued learned counsel.

7. Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and order by submitting that in the present case PW 6 being an eye witness has clearly proved the involvement of accused in the alleged offences. There are also the testimonies of PW-7 and PW-8, who fully support and corroborate the version of PW-6. In such circumstances, learned trial Court was totally justified in convicting the accused, argued learned APP.

8. The prosecution in order to establish guilt of the accused has in all examined 11 witnesses. The accused on her part has also examined her father as a defence witness. Before we undertake the task of appreciating the prosecution witness, it may be noted that accused is also charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder. Postmortem reports on record reveals that cause of death of children in question was due to asphyxia due to drowning. The accusation against accused is that she had thrown the children into a well leading to drowning and death. In such circumstances, whether the death was homicidal or not, the role played by accused will have to be ascertained with precision.

We propose to go through the evidence of these witnesses.

9. PW-5 Raosaheb Bapurao Bhosale stated in his evidence (Exh.18) that on 08/06/1997 he was attached to Nashik Taluka Police Station as PSI. Accidental report bearing ADR No. 10/97, under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. was handed over to him for investigation. He visited the house of Bhagwan Rokde and prepared inquest panc