The Supreme Court today has granted bail to a man convicted for killing his wife and sentenced to a life term while noting that he has undergone more than 12 years incarceration and the appeal is not likely to be heard at an early date.
On Thursday, a bail plea of Mahendra Balasaheb Lade was taken up by the Bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari for committing the murder of his wife Lata. Counsel for Petitioner apprised the court that Mahendra is languishing in jail from past 12 years, and at present, he is on covid parole, thus Mahendra was enlarged on bail. Mahendra was convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced for Rigorous imprisonment for life.
The High court observed that there is sufficient evidence to show that the appellant assaulted Lata with a grinding stone and caused her death and opined that the case is not covered by Exception 1 or Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the case clearly falls under Section 302 of IPC.
Prosecution avers that appellant was married to deceased Lata. The appellant and the deceased used to frequently quarrel. The incident occurred on 19.4.2007. Lata started abusing. Both Lata and the appellant started quarreling. Suman Tupe was the neighbour of the appellant and the deceased. Pallavi rushed to the house of the appellant. The door of the house was found bolted from inside. After sometime, the appellant came out of the house and went away. When Suman and Pallavi entered the house, they found that Lata was lying dead with blood stains on her face. Suman then went to the Police Station and lodged F.I.R. The dead body of Lata was sent for post mortem. Spot panchnama was carried out.
The Hon’ble High court, interestingly observed that there is no rule of law nor rule of prudence that the extra-judicial confession cannot be acted upon unless corroborated. In the present case, Blood was found lying by the side of Lata. Thus, we find there is sufficient evidence to corroborate the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW 3 Pallavi.
The appeal before Bombay High Court preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
Counsel for Petitioner argued before Bombay High Court that even though the appellant assaulted Lata and caused her death, the case would not fall under Section 302 of IPC but it would fall under Section 304-II of IPC. He submitted that the case would fall under Exception 1 or Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and would thus be covered by Section 304-II of IPC.
The Supreme Court in the decision in the case of State of U.P. V/s. M.M. Anthony has observed that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence.