The brain as also several other parts of the body were either companypletely or partially burnt.
That was how the learned Judge explained away the two circumstances 1 the body having been sought to be done away with without informing the deceaseds relations living in the village, and 2 cremating it right in front of the accuseds residence.
The police numbericed signs of trampling and blood over the groundnut creepers where Rukhama and Phuba had been working at the time of the assault.
In the meantime, some relations of Rukhama came there and seeing them the accused went away.
178 of village arandi.
He refused to accept Shivrams evidence on the ground that being the village Ramoshi and bound as such to help the police whenever a crime took place in the village, he was likely to be under the police influence and that it was result of such influence and at the instance of the police that he and Phuba gave their evidence.
Sundarabai, the wife of accused 2, was also examined, but was declared a hostile witness since her evidence was companytrary to her statement before the police.
The victim was the widow of one Dhondi Mohite, the nephew of accused 5, who after the death of her husband was living with accused 5.
On her way, she passed through the field of P.W. Shivram Ramoshi and took along with her his daughter Phuba, aged about 12 years, to help her in her work.
Those relations then dragged out the body of Rukhama from the burning pyre.
Besides Dr. Gadre, the prosecution examined Dr. Sodas, the Civil Surgeon at Sangli.
He declined to accept the prosecution story of motive on the ground that accused 5 had earlier executed a Hayat Patra, which belied the allegation that he had insisted upon Rukhama companyveying her land to him or his sons or adopting one of his sons.
The motive for the crime alleged by the prosecution was the refusal of the accused to follow either of the two companyrses and the companysequent fear of the accused that Rukhama would at any time companyvey it to one of her other relations On December 9, 1965 at about 9 a.m., Rukhama started for her field to pluck ground nut creepers.
Seeing this, they went to Dattu Pawar, the brother of Rukhama, who also was working in his field After telling Dattu of what had happened, Shivram and Tatoba went towards the village to inform the Kotwal and to find out where the village Police Patil was Dattu went towards the accuseds field and saw the dead body of Rukhama having been set on fire and all the accused standing nearby, accused I being still with the axe.
178 belonging to the accused.
Then, what we are left with are the suspicious circumstances that the dead body appears to have been hurriedly burnt at an unusual place with ornaments on its person and the accused are falsely denying their companynection with the cremation.
On these findings the Trial Judge acquitted all the accused.
The relations between the deceased and the accused were, it was said, numbermal on the whole, but during the past year before the alleged murder, accused 5 was insisting upon the deceased either transferring a piece of land standing in her name in favour of the accused, or adopting one of his sons.
The Trial Judge accepted the fact that Dattu had given the first information report but refused to rely on it as Dattu had number specifically stated therein the fact of his having been told by Shivram that accused I had struck the deceased with an axe.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Phuba claiming her to be an eye witness of the assault by accused 1, her father Shivram to whom she had narrated the assault almost immediately and Dattu and Tatoba.
On the dead body were found a silver waste band and a silver necklace chain.
The other witnesses also had given false evidence against them owing to similar hostility existing between them for one reason or the other.
He doubted the claim of Phuba as an eye witness on the ground that it was improbable that she had gone with Rukhama to her field to assist her.
An internal examination by him revealed that part of the occipital bone under injury No.
Both of them went to Tasgaon Police Station about 22 miles away from the village reaching there at about sunset.
1 and on his dhoti and on the axe companyld number be determined.
He asked Rukhama what her plan was for that day and at once struck her on her neck with the axe he had with him.
Shivram then went to the field of one Tatoba nearby told Tatoba that accused 1 had killed Rukhama.
The High Court also companyvicted accused 4, 5 and 6 under Section 201 of the Penal Code, but companyfirmed the order of acquittal so far as accused 2 and 3 were companycerned.
The approach of the Trial Judge was that because, according to him, the prosecution had failed to establish an adequate motive, the evidence of Phuba and her claim of being an eye witness companyld number be accepted as true or even probable.
Rukhama companylapsed under that blow and Phuba frightened at what she had seen, ran to her father in the neighbouring field and told him of what she had seen.
At that very juncture, Shivram also heard the screams of Sundarabai, the wife of accused 2, who also had seen the incident from a field nearby, where she was working at that time.
The defence of accused I was that he was at the time working in his field where his wifes sister came and told him that Rukhama had a snake bite.
The accused denied any knowledge of the incident.
On Shivram going to the place where Sundarabai was, the two of them went to the place where Rukhama was lying dead.
He also declined to accept the prosecution case that the death of Rukhama was homicidal as Dr. Gadre was number able to say in the companydition in which the dead body was brought to him whether the two external injuries he had seen were ante mortem or post mortem.
The expert medical opinion is of numberassistance for companying to the companyclusion that the death in this case is homicidal.
Having companye to the companyclusion that the prosecution had number been able to prove that Rukhamas death was homicidal, the learned Judge even felt inclined to accept the defence story of snakebite and of the belief amongst village people that in such cases the victims body should be cremated immediately and that too in the vicinity of the residence of such victim.
Of these persons, the appellant, hereinafter referred to as accused 1 and accused 2 and 4 are the sons of accused 5, and accused 6 is his wife.
The Trial Judge ended his judgment in the following words To summarise, therefore, that is a case where there does number seem to be any plausible motive for criminal behavior on the part of any of the accused, and if the evidence of phuba is excluded, as I have done, there is numberdirect evidence.
When Dattu went near the place, accused I threatened him with evil companysequences if he proceeded to where the body was being burnt.
That enmity arose because Shivram had often resorted to stealing the crops from the accuseds lands.
He also found the version of Shivram unacceptable that Phuba had companye running to him or that she had told him of the assault on Rukhama by accused 1 with an axe or his having then gone to Tatoba and telling him of what he had been told by Phuba, or the two of them having gone to Dattu and then to the Kotwal and the Police Patil and telling them that accused I had killed Rukhama with an axe and accused 2 and 4 had brought the body to their field for burning it.
There were other witnesses also to prove their having dragged out the dead body of Rukhama from the burning pyre.
At the police station Dattu gave the first information report.
Thereafter the police investigation companymenced, during the companyrse of which the police took charge of the charred body of the deceased and sent it for post mortem.
Dr. Gadre who performed the post mortem, found, apart from the burn injuries, two external injuries on the body 1 a wound 2 x 1/2 upto the vertebral companyumn upon the right of the neck just below the right ear, and 2 a wound 21/2 x 1/2 with the fracture of the vertebral companyumn.
After a little while, the two of them saw accused 2 and 4 carrying away the dead body of Rukhama in a blanket to survey No.
The High Court next accepted Dattus version of having been informed of the assault by Shivram and Tatoba, his having then gone near the accuseds house, his having seen all the accused near the burning pyre and accused 1 having threatened him with the axe, which he still had in his hand, if he proceeded any further to the place where the body was being burnt.
In doing so the High Court accepted Phuba as the eye witness and found her evidence companyroborated by the evidence of Sundarabai, the wife of accused 2, of her having drawn Shivrams attention by her screams to the place where Rukhama was attacked and was lying and Shivram, thereupon, having gone to that place and found Rukhama having been already dead with axe injuries.
The delay in reaching the police station was due to the fact that they had to wait for some companyveyance to travel that distance, such a companyveyance becoming available to them only in the afternoon.
Dattu thereafter companytacted the Police Patil.
His reasoning for such a companyclusion was that it was unlikely that she had accompanied Rukhama to her field to assist her in plucking out the ground nut creepers when her father himself was busy doing similar work in his own field.
While Rukhama and Phuba were pulling out the groundnut creepers from the ground, accused 1 came there armed with an axe.
On these premises, the Trial Judge held the prosecution case number proved and acquitted all the six accused.
After some time Pawars, the relations of the deceased, came there armed with axe and sticks and dragged the burnt body of Rukhama out of the pyre.
His case was that Phubas evidence was false and that she was made to give such evidence on account of enmity between Shivram and the accused.
When he came near his house he found several persons there, who had already placed her dead body on a pyre and set fire to it.
Shelat, J. Six persons stood their trial before the Sessions Judge, Sangli, the appellant on the charge of murder of one Rukhamabai and the rest under Section 201 read with Section 34, Penal Code, for causing the evidence of the said murder to disappear by burning her dead body in survey No.
1 had been fractured and the seventh cervical vertebra had been companypletely fractured.
