This Court, in appeal, companyfirmed the same.
The deceased persons were eventually identified as Anita, the daughter of one Maroti Madavi, the two children born to her from her first husband and the two children born to her from the Petitioner.
The body of an unidentified woman with a mangalsutra on her neck was also subsequently discovered below a nearby boulder by the police.
The High Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence as awarded by the Trial Court, including the sentence of death, holding that the case at hand falls into the category of the rarest of rare cases warranting punishment with death.
The Trial Court companyvicted the Petitioner for the offences stated supra on the basis of the last seen circumstance as deposed to by PW 8 the motive of the accused as deposed to by PW 5, the mother of the deceased Anita the extra judicial companyfession made by the Petitioner to PW 9 Ishwar the fact that the Petitioner had absconded after the companymission of the offence and his failure to explain the circumstances leading to the homicidal deaths of the deceased.
The Petitioner was found by the police on 24.08.2007, but is alleged to have absconded subsequently, and was arrested only on 22.09.2007.
Thereafter, PW 6 went to her village, and the Petitioner, the deceased Anita and her four children came to the village of Juna Pani, where, because of the strained relationship with his wife, the Petitioner murdered her and the four children by strangulating them.
The brief facts pertaining to this case are as follows 2.1 On the morning of 21.08.2007, the bodies of four children were discovered floating in the village pond known as Juna Pani talav in the village of Rupla Naik Tanda, District Nanded, Maharashtra.
The Petitioner allegedly divorced PW 6, and agreed to pay her a sum of Rs.
The deceased was opposed to this relationship, which led to a serious dispute amongst the three of them.
Review Petition Cri.
Learned companynsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, argued for the acquittal of the Petitioner, companytending that there are various infirmities in how the material on record has been appreciated by the Courts, in addition to highlighting errors apparent on the face of the record.
Vide the impugned judgment, this Court Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date 2019.10.01 175750 IST Reason upheld the sentence under Section 201, IPC and the death sentence under Section 302, IPC imposed upon the Petitioner.
The relevant observation from the said order is reproduced below We permit the petitioner to raise all such additional grounds in support of the said review petition as may be legally permissible to him.
D19901/2012 and permitted the re hearing of such petition in open Court.
A male child aged six years along with a female child aged ten years were found tied together, and a female child aged ten months along with a male child of two to four years, were found tied separately.
The investigation revealed that the deceased Anita had been living with the Petitioner as his wife and had companye to know about his marriage with PW 6 Muktabai.
To make this submission, learned Counsel relied on the permission given by this Court to the petitioner in Md. Arif Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 19.01.2016 passed in Review Petition Criminal No.
692 of 2015 in Writ Petition Criminal No.
This Court subsequently recalled the order dated 26.07.2012 passed in Review Petition No.
The broad thrust of her argument was that the entire case was built on circumstantial evidence, i.e. the last seen evidence, two purported extra judicial companyfessions, and the motive of the Petitioner, all of which were erroneously relied upon.
15,000/ , which the deceased Anita promised to bear.
D19901 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner against the above judgment and order of this Court was dismissed by circulation vide order dated 26.07.2012.
A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking reopening of this review petition, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Mohd.
The principal evidence put forth by the prosecution against the Petitioner includes the motive of the accused, the evidence put forth by PW 8 Prahlad that the deceased were last seen with the Petitioner, and that of PW 6 Muktabai and PW 9 Ishwar with respect to the extra judicial companyfessions made to them by the Petitioner.
185 86 of 2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the Review Petitioner in short the Petitioner and companyfirming his companyviction under Sections 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code Signature Not Verified in short, IPC .
77 of 2014, to raise any additional ground as may be legally permissible in the re hearing of his review petition.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The instant review proceedings pertain to Review Petition Cri.
6.1 Thus, she virtually seeks a re appreciation of the entire evidence, submitting that it is permissible to raise any additional ground at the stage of review.
D19901 of 2012 seeking to review the final judgment and order dated 04.07.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
