Relief for mother & son in murder case

Aurangabad: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court acquitted a woman in the case of her husband’s killing in 2010. The court also absolved her son of the murdering his father, concluding that he didn’t inflict the blow with intention to murder. However, the bench convicted the son to 10-year rigorous imprisonment for attempting to murder his father.The court also ordered his release as he had already completed the sentence.
Deepak Pundalik (then 25) and his mother Chhayabai (then 45) of Kelgaon Murdeshwar in Sillod taluka were convicted by the trial court in January, 2016. They were accused numbers 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.
Ingale (the deceased man) had two wives, Kantabai (first wife) and Chhayabai (second wife). Chhayabai and her sons, including Deepak, wanted division of Ingale’s farmland between his two wives. On March 28, 2010, Ingale had gone to the farm. There, Harshal found Deepak quarrelling with Ingale. When Harshal tried to reason with Deepak, the latter attacked him with a spear. Ingale tried to intervene but instead received a blow to his chest and collapsed. He was taken to the hospital where he died the following day. The police had arrested Deepak and Chhayabai, who were subsequently charge-sheeted and sentenced. Both approached the HC through lawyer Nilesh Ghanekar challenging their conviction.
While referring to Supreme Court verdict, the bench comprising Justices T V Nalawade and Mangesh S Patil observed: “This court has come to the conclusion that there is clear probability that the incident took place in sudden quarrel and without premeditation and the accused did not take undue advantage of the circumstances. Only due to the motive, this Court has come to a conclusion that there was intention to cause the injury that resulted in the death. On the whole, the decision of acquittal needs to be given in favour of accused No. 2 as she had not played any part in the incident and there is nothing to infer that she had shared common intention with accused No.1. The deceased was her husband and the evidence given that instigation was given by her to accused No.1 is not that convincing.”