http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  502 of 2006

PETITIONER: Bandu

RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/03/2007

BENCH: S. B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment & order of  the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1996.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In this case the appellant Bandu had been found guilty under Section  498-A of the India Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment  for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- by the trial court.   However, on appeal by  the State Government as well as Bandu, the High Court while setting aside  the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A, held him guilty under  Section 302 IPC and convicted him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.  500/-.

According to the prosecution case PW6 Shanta Kotangale was  married to accused Bandu on 10.5.1985.  After happy cohabitation for initial  12 months, the parties started having differences.  Accused Bandu used to  say that he did not like Shanta and that she should go back to her parent’s  place.  She conceived, but continued to face ill-treatment.  Eventually, her  brother took her to the parental house.  She filed a petition for maintenance  before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Hinganghat, in which a  compromise was reached on 2.10.1990, and the parties resumed  cohabitation.  Thereafter she gave a birth to a daughter, named Nita, at her  parent’s place.  Accused Bandu brought back his wife and daughter to his  matrimonial home.  For a few days everything was all right, but thereafter  the accused started saying that Nita was not his daughter and, therefore, he   prevented Shanta from feeding Nita.  On 1.1.1991 at about 3 A.M., when  Shanta and accused Bandu were sleeping with their daughter, the accused  killed daughter Nita by pressing her neck and threw Nita from the cot.   Shanta  started crying which attracted quite a crowd and Pulgaon Police  Station was informed about the incident.  The police came to the spot, took  the dead body of 1-1/2 year old Nita and sent it for post mortem  examination. After the inquest, the police performed panchanama on the  spot, examined the witnesses and registered the offence.  The accused was  arrested on completion of the investigation and charge-sheet was sent to the  learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pulgaon.  The learned Magistrate  committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Wardha.

       On perusal of the facts, it appears that wife Shanta has deposed  that the appellant killed his daughter Nita, who was only 1-1/2 years  old, by strangling her.   It has come in evidence that the appellant  suspected the fidelity of his wife Shanta and thought that Nita was not  his child at all.  There had been differences between the husband and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

wife as a result of which she was made to leave her husband’s house,  but Shanta returned to the appellant after giving birth to her daughter  Nita.  The accused-appellant  did not allow her to feed her daughter  Nita and ultimately on 1.1.1991 killed her by strangling her.  We see no  reason to disbelieve Shanta.

       We have seen the post mortem report.  There are injuries on the  neck, cheek and eyes of the child Nita and the doctor has given her  evidence that the probable cause of death might be due to asphyxia due  to suffocation.   We see no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case as  it is consistent with the medical evidence.

       We have carefully gone through the evidence of Shanta.   She is  an eye witness to the incident and thus there is direct evidence in this  case.  She has stated that her husband was not allowing her to give milk  and feed to her child, Nita and her husband killed the child by pressing  her neck.  Her evidence is credible and also stood corroborated by the  post mortem report and other evidence on record.

Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment  of the High Court.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.