Vandana W/O. Sanjay Gahiwat (In ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9478 Bom

                                        1                                  APEAL54.18+1.odt


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.


                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2018
                                                With
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2018
                                             .............
                                Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2018
 APPELLANT                     : Shamrao S/o Sukhadeo Telgote,
                                  Aged about 45 years,
                                  Occupation : Labourer
                                  R/o Village Jamb, Tal. Patur,
                                  Dist. Akola (In jail)
                                  (C-5048 at Central Prison, Amravati)

                                              VERSUS

 RESPONDENT                    : State of Maharashtra,
                                 through Police Station Officer,
                                 Police Station, Channi,
                                 Tq. Patur, Dist. Akola.

                                             With
                               Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2018
 APPELLANT                     : Vandana W/o Sanjay Ghaiwat,
                                 Aged about 37 years, Occupation : Labourer
                                 R/o Village Jamb, Tal. Patur,
                                 Dist. Akola
                                 (Presently lodged at Central Prison, Amravati)

                                              VERSUS

 RESPONDENT                    : State of Maharashtra,
                                 through Police Station Officer,
                                 Police Station, Channi,
                                 Tq. Patur, Dist. Akola.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Mr. V. P. Mohod, Advocate appointed for appellant in Appeal No. 54/18
     Mr. N. A. Badar, Advocate for appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 103/18
     Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, A. P. P. for the respondent/State in both appeals
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




::: Uploaded on - 17/09/2021                                    ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 04:01:39 :::
                                2                        APEAL54.18+1.odt


                 CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE and AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : JULY 19, 2021.

JUDGMENT [Per V. M. Deshpande, J.]

1. These two appeals are filed against the judgment and

order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola,

dated 21.06.2017 in Sessions Case No. 247 of 2014. The learned

Sessions Judge found the appellants in both these appeals guilty for

the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, consequently he ordered them that they shall

undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine amount of

Rs.5,000/- by each of them and in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. Since, both these appeals arise out of same judgment,

they were taken up for hearing simultaneously and they are being

decided by this common judgment.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 54/2018 is filed by Shamrao

Sukhadeo Telgote, who was accused no.1 in the Sessions case,

3 APEAL54.18+1.odt

whereas Criminal Appeal No. 103/2018 is filed by Vandana W/o

Sanjay Ghaiwat, who was accused no.2 in the Sessions case.

4. Appellant Shamrao Telgote is represented by Shri V.P.

Mohod, learned counsel appointed by the High Court Legal Services

Sub Committee, Nagpur. Appellant Vandana Ghaiwat is represented

by Shri N.A. Badar, learned counsel. In both these appeals, the

respondent/State is represented by Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. The appellants were charged that on 08.09.2014 in

between 18.45 to 19.00 hours at village Jamb, they along with

juvenile in conflict with law Shubham Ghaiwat committed murder of

Nitin @ Janardhan Kisan Ghaiwat by means of Axe and brick stone.

In the sessions trial, obviously Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law,

was not tried. The appellants denied the charge and claimed for

their trial. In order to prove the charge against them, the

prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses. After statements of

accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were

recorded, they also examined two defence witnesses.

4 APEAL54.18+1.odt

6. The incident had occurred during Ganpati festival, more

specifically on the day of immersion of Lord Ganesha. In view of the

said occasion, PW10 Vishnukant Gutte, Assistant Inspector of Police

of Police Station, Chhani was on patrolling duty. While patrolling at

village Pimpalkhuta at about 7.30 p.m., he received phone call that

the appellants have committed murder of Nitin Ghaiwat by means of

Axe. He passed on said information to ASI Panchbhai, who was at

Alegaon. He also asked Ashok Ingle to take entry in the Station

Diary and thereafter, he proceeded to the spot of the incident i.e.

village Jamb. He went in front of the house of Kisan Ghaiwat. He

found that Nitin was lying in dead condition in the courtyard. He

called panchas and prepared spot panchanama. Spot panchanama

was prepared in presence of PW2 Raju Marodkar. It is at Exh.39. He

also seized simple as well as blood mixed earth, broken bricks, one

tobacco pouch, yellow colour chappal and chilly powder mixed with

soil. Similarly, he seized chilly powder mixed with earth from inside

the house of appellant Vandana, so also simple earth from inside the

house of appellant Vandana under seizure panchanama (Exh.40). He

also done inquest over the dead body. Inquest panchanama is at

Exh.41. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the Government

5 APEAL54.18+1.odt

Medical College and Hospital, Akola for most mortem. He also

recorded the statements of Kisan Ghaiwat, Mankarnabai Ghaiwat

and Dipali Ghaiwat. He also sent Dipali for her medical examination

at Alegaon Primary Health Center under requisition (Exh.73), who

was examined there. Medical Certificate of Dipali is at Exh.74.

7. In the meanwhile, Mankarnabai (PW1) lodged her oral

report (Exh.35).

As per the oral report (Exh.35), she is the second wife of

Kisan Ghaiwat, His first wife Sindhubai died due to snake biting.

From first wife, Kisan have two sons and two daughters, eldest was

Sanjay. Mankarnabai begotten one son from Kisan, by name Nitin @

Janardhan (deceased). The report discloses that everybody was

married. As per the report, her step son Sanjay's marriage was

performed with accused Vandana about 20 years ago and after his

marriage, within a period of 15 days, he started residing separately.

Sanjay was having two sons by name Shubham, aged about 16 years,

juvenile in conflict with law and Roshan, aged about 14 years and

one daughter Achal, aged about 11 years. The report further

discloses that Sanjay committed suicide about 3 years ago by

6 APEAL54.18+1.odt

consuming poison. As per the report, his widow Vandana used to

reside just adjacent to the house of Mankarnabai.

According to the oral report, accused Vandana developed

love relations with accused Shamrao (appellant) since last one year

and he used to visit Vandana's house and used to sleep there.

Therefore, Kisan and Nitin gave advise to Vandana that she should

not indulge in such affair. So also a word of advise was given to

Shamrao that he should not visit the house of Vandana, however,

Shamrao was not in a mood to listen the same, resultantly there was

a quarrel about three months ago, which was pacified.

8. According to the report, in view of immersion of Lord

Ganesha, Mankarnabai, her son and daughter-in-law were present in

the house while her husband Kisan had been to Deulgaon along with

one Karim bhai. At 2.30 p.m., there was a Ganpati procession. Nitin

participated in the same. The said procession came in front of the

house of Mankarnabai at about 4.00 O'clock, therefore, Mankarnabai

also participated in the said procession. At about 5.00 O'clock,

immersion of Lord Ganesha took place at the government well.

Thereafter, at Hanuman Mandir, there was 'bhandara' (meals). As

7 APEAL54.18+1.odt

per the report, deceased Nitin took meals in the said ' bhandara' and

the first informant was standing near the shop of Ganesh. According

to the report, after taking meals, Nitin came near her and purchased

one tobacco pouch from Ganesh Ambhore's shop. As per the report,

when she was proceeding towards her house and when she reached

near Buddha Vihar following her son Nitin and when Nitin was in the

courtyard, that time appellant Shamrao and Shubham, juvenile in

conflict with law, arrived on the spot. They were armed with Axe

and they stared assaulting Nitin. According to the report, Shamrao

assaulted on the backside of head of Nitin repeatedly for 2-3 times

whereas Shubham gave 2-3 axe blows on left cheek and Vandana

threw bricks towards Nitin. After the assault, they ran away. It is

also stated in the report that not only she, but also her daughter-in-

law Dipali, wife of Nitin also witnessed the incident of assault.

Printed first information report is at Exh.36. It shows

that the crime was registered at 1.30 hours.

9. Crime was registered by PSI Pathan. Then the

investigation was entrusted to PW10 Vishnukant Gutte. He arrested

accused Vandana Ghaiwat under arrest panchanama (Exh.83). He

8 APEAL54.18+1.odt

also arrested Shubham Ghaiwat, juvenile in conflict with law.

Clothes of accused Vandana were seized under seizure panchanama

(Exh.44) in presence of panch PW3 Uddhav Band. Similarly, clothes

of Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law, were seized under seizure

panchanama (Exh.45) in presence of PW3 Uddhav Band. According

to the prosecution, Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law made his

voluntary statement in presence of panch witness Uddhav Band

(PW3). The admissible portion from his statement recorded under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is at Exh.46. By the said, Shubham

agreed to show the place where he had thrown axe. After recording

of his memorandum statement, he led the police party to a spot and

thereafter from one shrub he took out an axe, which was seized. At

the time of seizure, there were blood stains on that axe. Recovery

panchanama is at Exh.47. The Investigating Officer also made search

of the house of Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law. The house

search panchanama is at Exh.48. From the house search, one axe

was seized having blood stains. The Investigating Officer also seized

the clothes and viscera of deceased Nitin under seizure panchanama

(Exh.50). Clothes on the person of Dipali were also seized under

seizure panchanama (Exh.70). Appellant Shamrao was arrested

9 APEAL54.18+1.odt

after a period of one month under arrest panchanama (Exh.85). He

also made voluntary statement to produce the clothes in presence of

PW4 Devidas Rathod and agreed to show the place where he

concealed the clothes and his cell phone. The admissible portion of

his statement is at Exh.56. Under seizure panchanamas (Exhs.57

and 58), his clothes and mobile phone were seized. Thereafter, the

Investigating Officer sent muddemal property to the Chemical

Analyser and on completion of the entire investigation, he filed the

charge-sheet.

10. As per the prosecution case, there are two eye-witnesses,

they are PW1 Mankarnabai, mother of the deceased and PW7 Dipali,

widow of Nitin.

11. PW6 is Dr. Balwan Bolsure, who was working in Forensic

Medicine Department at Government Medical College, Akola. On

09.09.2014, police had brought body of Nitin for post mortem. Dr.

Bolsure along with Dr. Hussain and Dr. Padole conducted post

mortem and found following external injuries :

1. Abrasion of reddish colour over forehead on right frontal region of size 4 cm x 3 cm.

10 APEAL54.18+1.odt

2. Abrasion over right cheek of size 5 cm x 4 cm.

3. Incised looking lacerated wound of scalp over left frontal region of size 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.

4. Chop wound over left cheek over zygoma of size 6 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep horizontally placed.

5. Chop wound over left cheek left ear externally of size 8 cm x 4 cm x brain deep. It also destroys anti-helix, helix and also chops the under lung entric-cartilaginous and fracture.

6. Chop wound of scalp over occipital region just beside and behind mastoid process of size 5 cm x 4 cm x bone deep. Craciate shaped.

7. Chop wound over lover aspect of occipital region shape of neck on left side size 4 cm x 1.3 cm x muscle deep.

8. Lacerated wound over left shoulder superiorly of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep.

Also, he found following internal injuries.

1. Subgial contusion in the for of hyematoma diffusely over left fronto parito occipital region.

2. Cracked undisplaced fracture over left frontal bone of size 2.5 cm in length with infliteration of blood, fracture over left temparo parieto occipital region with displacement of size 11 cm x 5.3 cm.

3. Cracked undisplaced fracture over middle cranial fossa of size 5 cm in length.

4. Duraform, lacerated over left temparo occipital region with cerebral hemisphere of left size fronto parietal region shows shopped lacerated area over frontal pole. It is about 1 cm x 1 cm and over temporal region, it is 4 cm x 1 cm with blood and clots around with sub-arechical hemorrhaged diffusely all over left cerebral hemisphere.

12. Dr. Bolsure proved post mortem report (Exh.63).

11 APEAL54.18+1.odt

According to the post mortem report and the opinion of Doctor, the

death was due to shock due to multiple chopped chrenial cerebral

injuries. In view of evidence of PW10 Dr. Bolsure and the post

morem report, there cannot be any difficulty to hold that the

deceased died homicidal death.

13. According to the prosecution, it is the appellants and

Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law, who are responsible for

homicidal death of Nitin. According to the defence, appellant

Shamrao is falsely implicated in the crime and at the relevant time he

was not at all present in the village, but he was at Akola, more

specifically in Icon Hospital to take care of his mother, who was

indoor patient. The defence of appellant Vandana was that on the

day of the incident, when she was present along with Shubham,

juvenile in conflict with law and her other son and daughter, Nitin

came inside her house under the influence of liquor. He was keeping

bad eye on Vandana. He tried to molest her resulting into scuffle in

between them. Chilly powder was thrown. Nitin tried to commit

rape on her and also assaulted her resulting into injury on her head.

He torn her saree and blouse. In that process, in order to save her,

12 APEAL54.18+1.odt

her son Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law, assaulted on Nitin by

means of axe resulting into injury on his head.

14. First Information Report is not a substantive piece of

evidence. It can be used either for corroboration or contradiction of

its maker, is the settled principle of law.

15. In the first information report (Exh.35), it is very

specifically asserted that at the time of incident, appellant Shamrao

Telgote had assaulted by means of axe for 2-3 times on the backside

of head of Nitin and Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law, had

assaulted on right cheek of Nitin by means of axe and accused

Vandana threw chilly powder. In this background, it would be useful

to reproduce what Mankarnabai (PW1) has stated in her

examination-in-chief and the same is reproduced herein below :

"My son was assaulted on head and also on back. Accused Shubham assaulted on the cheek and ears of my son Nitin. Accused Vandana threw chilly powder, as well as bricks towards my of son Nitin. I had myself seen the said incident."

From the aforesaid it is very clear that she is conspicuously silent

about alleged assault made by appellant Shamrao on the backside of

head of Nitin.

13 APEAL54.18+1.odt

16. According to the autopsy surgeon Dr. Banwan Bolsure

(PW6), injury nos.1 and 2 in column no.17 were simple injuries.

Injury in column no.19 to the brain corresponds to injury no.5 in

column no.17 i.e. external injury, which was as under :

"Chop wound over left cheek left ear externally of size 8 cm x 4 cm x brain deep. It also destroys anti-helix, helix and also chops the under lung entric-cartilaginous and fracture."

Doctor also found that injury Nos.7 and 8 were not sufficient to

cause death.

17. In the aforesaid background it is clear that the injuries

found on the cheek and ear are clearly attributable to Shubham,

juvenile in conflict with law and not to accused Shamrao, as alleged

by the prosecution witnesses. Though, according to the prosecution,

incident in question was also noticed by Dipali (PW7), in our view,

her status cannot be elevated as an eye-witness and at the most she

reached after the assault. In her cross-examination, she has stated as

under :

"I was watching TV alone in the house when my husband came. My husband told me that he has just taken meals. My husband on reaching immediately told me that he will go and bring packet of tobacco. I heard the shouts immediately

14 APEAL54.18+1.odt

after he went out. When I came out of the house I saw that my husband was lying on the ground and blood was oozing from his head."

Neither Dipali nor Mankarnabai did state in their evidence that after

Nitin fell on the ground, the assault was continued. If that be so,

from the aforesaid evidence of Dipali, it is clear that she was not an

eye-witness.

18. According to the defence of accused Vandana, deceased

entered in her house under the influence of liquor and he tried to

commit rape on her. Dr. Bolsure (PW6), who conducted post

mortem, found that Nitin's stomach was containing smell of alcohol.

It would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion as appearing in

his cross-examination :

"5. My attention is drawn to column relating to stomach. It is true to say that there is mention of pungent smell due to ethyl alcohol."

Though, viscera was preserved, viscera report is not placed on

record. However, in view of the admission given by the autopsy

surgeon and the contemporaneous finding noted by him in post

mortem report (Exh.63), it is clear that the deceased had consumed

liquor. Therefore, to that extent, defence of accused Vandana that

15 APEAL54.18+1.odt

under the influence of liquor Nitin had entered in her house, stands

corroborated.

19. We have already noted the defence of accused Vandana

that her blouse and saree were torn. Mankarnabai (PW1) gave vital

admission during her cross-examination that she noticed that saree

and blouse of Vandana were torn. Of course, she denied the

suggestion that Nitin had torn the same. It was the defence of

Vandana that she was assaulted by Nitin and during that she received

injuries.

P.W.5 is Dr. Nageshwar Ujade, who examined accused

Vandana on 09.09.2014 when she was brought to him by police. Dr.

Ujade proved injury certificate of Vandana. It is at Exh.61. Dr. Ujade

would state that during medical examination of Vandana he noticed

small abrasion over scalp around 3 cm and she gave history of hitting

by stone. It was not the case of the prosecution that Vandana self-

inflicted the injury. In spite of the injury being noticed by the Doctor,

Mankarnabai flatly refused that she noticed any injury on the person

of Vandana.

16 APEAL54.18+1.odt

20. In order to show that Dipali was an eye-witness, the

prosecution is relying upon her injury certificate (Exh.74). She was

examined by Dr. Madhuri Lahole (PW8). Evidence of Dipali (PW7)

does not show that when the alleged incident was going on she tried

to intervene and/or she handled any weapon. In this context,

evidence of Dr. Lahole assumes importance and it is reproduced

herein as under :

"It is true to say that palm is easily accessible part of the body. For self inflicted injury, palm can be most easily used. It is true to say that in case the hand is put on any sharp object such injuries can be caused as noted in the injury certificate. It is true to say that the possibility of self inflicted injury cannot be ruled out."

In view of the aforesaid, much importance cannot be given to the

simple injury that was noticed on her palm.

21. Spot panchanama is at Exh.39. Relevant portion

showing existence of chilly powder from house of Vandana till the

dead body, is reproduced herein as under :

";kp ?kjkyk ykxqu if'pesl xa-Hkk- oanuk lat; ?kk;oV fgps jkgrs ?kj vlqu e`rdkiklqu frps ?kjki;Zar o ?kjke/;s yky fioG;k jaxkph fejph ikoMj iMysyh fnlr vkgs- ?kj [kqys vkgs ijarq ?kjkr dq.khgh gtj ukgh- pqyh toG fejph iMysyh fnlr-"

17 APEAL54.18+1.odt

Spot Panchanama (Exh.39) also corroborates the defence of Vandana

in view of the aforesaid noting in the spot panchanama that chilly

powder was found from inside the house of Vandana till near the

dead body. Even PW2 Raju Marodkar, a panch witness, also states

that he noticed that blouse and saree of Vandana were torn. In

totality of the aforesaid, in our view, the defence of Vandana is

probablized that under the influence of liquor when Nitin entered

inside her house and tried to outrage her modesty, there was a scuffle

and during that scuffle Vandana suffered injury as noticed in Exh.61,

her saree and blouse were torn and to save her from the clutches of

Nitin, her son Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law, assaulted on

Nitin by axe, resulting into his death.

22. The defence of accused Shamrao was of alibi. According

to him, he was not present in the village at the time of the incident,

but he was at Icon Hospital at Akola. Defence of Shamrao was not

taken out of cough. In fact even during trial, it was his stand, as it

could be seen from his bail application (Exh.3), that he was not

present in village at the relevant time. He has examined two

witnesses namely DW1 Ranjeet Ghaiwat and DW2 Shubham

18 APEAL54.18+1.odt

Ghaiwat, juvenile in conflict with law. From the evidence of DW1

Ranjit Ghaiwat, it is clear that he along with Gautam and Mangesh

were proceeding towards Akola to see grandmother of Gautam and

mother of accused Shamrao. They started at 4.30 p.m. They went to

Icon Hospital located at Jathar Peth, Akola. They reached there at

6.30 p.m. That time Shamrao had gone for bringing tiffin.

Therefore, he gave a phone call to Shamrao and thereafter Shamrao

came to Icon Hospital. At about 7.30 p.m., Shamrao received a

phone call from his house about murder of Nitin.

23. In the cross-examination of DW1 Ranjit, it is brought on

record that in the hospital CCTV cameras were installed at various

places. In the hospital, the CCTV cameras were fixed where patients

and visitors of the patient were sitting. During his cross-

examination, it was brought on record by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor that this defence witness had lodged report with

the Superintendent of Police about the fact that Shamrao Telgote was

present in the Icon hospital at the time of incident. The learned

Judge of the trial Court has shifted the burden on Shamrao. In our

view since right from beginning it was the defence that there were

19 APEAL54.18+1.odt

CCTV cameras fixed in the hospital, it was open for the prosecution

to place its footage on record to disbelieve the plea of alibi taken by

accused Shamrao.

24. Evidence of Shubham (DW2) is on the line of defence of

his mother Vandana.

25. As per Mankarnabai (PW1), axe (Article-8) was in the

hands of Shamrao and axe (Article-13) was in the hands of

Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law.

26. No weapon was seized at the behest of appellant

Shamrao. As per the evidence of Dr. Bolsure (PW6), all the injuries

noticed by him were possible by weapon axe (article 13). During his

cross-examination, Dr. Bolsure did state as under :

"It is true to say that all the injuries mentioned by me in column no.17 are possible by weapon axe Article-13 and fracture is also possible."

It is thus crystal clear that all the injuries are attributed to weapon

axe (Article-13) by the Doctor and according to the eye-witness

Mankarnabai, axe (Article 13) was in the hands of Shubham, juvenile

in conflict with law, and not in the hands of Shamrao.

20 APEAL54.18+1.odt

27. It is the case of the prosecution that appellants Shamrao

and Vandana developed love relations and said love relations were

not digested by the family of Mankarnabai. PW2 Raju Marodkar, a

panch witness, who was also Sarpanch of the village, did state in his

evidence that there was dispute on the said issue between Shamrao

and the family of Nitin. Though, the dispute was resolved, according

to the witness, deceased Nitin gave threat to accused Shamrao that

he will involve Shamrao falsely.

28. Clothes of accused Shamrao were seized. Exh.77 is the

C.A. requisition. It shows that the clothes of Shamrao were not sent

to the Chemical Analyser.

29. In view of appreciation of the evidence, following

emerges qua Shamrao -

i. Family of the deceased was not liking his love relations with Vandana.

ii. There was no recovery of any weapon at the behest of Shamrao.

iii. According to the prosecution, axe (article 8) was used by Shamrao and axe (article 13) was used by Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law.

21 APEAL54.18+1.odt

iv. As per the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon, injuries on the person of deceased were caused by axe (Article-13). v. Though, the clothes of appellant Shamrao were seized, they were not sent to the Chemical Analyser. vi. Right from beginning it was the defence of Shamrao that he had been to Icon Hospital, Akola, where CCTV cameras were fixed, however, no attempt was made by the prosecution to discredit his defence of alibi.

30. On re-appreciation of entire prosecution case, we are of

the view that false implication of accused Shamrao is not completely

ruled out. Insofar as accused Vandana is concerned, her defence is

probablized by the prosecution witnesses themselves and the

circumstances brought on record by the prosecution that under the

influence of liquor, deceased Nitin tried to molest her and she was

assaulted by Nitin, her clothes were torn and in order to save her, her

son Shubham, juvenile in conflict with law, assaulted on Nitin by

means of axe (Article 13) resulting into his death. We, therefore,

pass the following order :

ORDER

1. Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2018 is allowed.

2. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Case No. 247/2014 on

22 APEAL54.18+1.odt

21.06.2017 convicting appellant - Shamrao S/o Sukhadeo Telgote

for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. Appellant - Shamrao S/o Sukhadeo Telgote, who is in jail,

shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other offence.

4. Learned counsel Shri V.P. Mohod, who represented appellant

- Shamrao S/o Sukhadeo Telgote as appointed counsel by the High

Court Legal Services Sub Committee at Nagpur, is entitled for his

professional charges and we quantified it at Rs.5,000/-.

5. Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2018 is hereby allowed.

6. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Case No. 247/2014 on

21.06.2017 convicting appellant - Vandana W/o Sanjay Ghaiwat for

the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside.

7. Appellant - Vandana W/o Sanjay Ghaiwat, who is on bail,

her bail bonds stand cancelled.

8. Both the criminal appeals are allowed and disposed of

accordingly.

                               JUDGE                 JUDGE
 Diwale