Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. : This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay setting aside the acquittal of the appellant Laxman Kalu Nikalje and convicting him under S. 302 with a sentence of imprisonment for life. The facts of the case are as follows :

2. This Laxman was married to Shantabai (P W 3) who is the daughter of one Bhika Ganpat Nikam (P. W. 2) a Railway employee working at a Railway crossing at Gartad District Dhullia. This crossing is situated on the Dhullia - Chalisgaon Railway line. Bhika was residing in one of the quarters intended for such people near the Railway, crossing with his wife Gangubai, his sons Ramrao, Laxman and Bharat. Shantabai was married some five years before the occurrence and lived with her husband, Laxman at Ganeshpur Pimpri in Taluka Chalisgaon.

3. Some days before Nag Panchami of the year 1962 Shantabai was brought to her parent s place. She stayed with them till the 10th August 1962. Laxman wanted his wife back and arrived at Gartad to take her away to his own house. Bhika put in some excuses saying that he had no money and he could only send his daughter back after he gets his pay on the 21st or the 22nd. The excuse given by Bhika and his wife Gangubai was that they could not let the girl go without giving her some presents and that money was needed for the purchase of these presents. However, as Laxman insisted on taking his wife away immediately, a sum of Rs. 10 was borrowed. It is said in one place that money was borrowed from one Tarachand and in another, from Laxman himself. Gangubai in the company of Shantabai went to Dhullia to make some purchases and returned on August 10 in the afternoon. It appears that a train was then due and Laxman is said to have insisted that his wife should go with him by that train. The parents, however, said that it was not auspicious to send the girl at night and that they could go in the morning. It does not appear that any quarrel over this took place. Whether Laxman was reconciled to this suggestion or was still angry is not known. In the evening at about 7 p. m., Laxman was sitting with Shantabai and Ramrao outside the quarter and Bhike was chopping some fuel at the back of the hut, Kamlabai (the widow of Ramrao ), Gangubai, Bharat and Laxman were inside the room. According to Shantabai, Ramrao and Laxman had a few words and on that Laxman took out a knife and stabbed Ramrao on the shoulder and ran away. Ramrao shouted and so did Shantabai; Bhika and others arrived on the scene. They carried Ramrao on a cot to the Railway Crossing and when the train arrived, it was stopped by showing the danger signal. Ramrao was placed on the train and left on the train accompanied by Bhika, Gangubai and Kamlabai. On the train, Bhika told the Guard that his son-in-law had stabbed the injured man. The Railway guard noted this fact in his log book. Ramrao was carried to the Dhullia hospital and was found to have died before his entry in the hospital. A report of the incident was then also made, in which the name of Laxman was mentioned as the assailant.

4. The police after investigation, prosecuted Laxman. On behalf of the Prosecution, Shantibai was the main witness and in fact the only eye-witness. Ganguhai and Bhika did not claim to have seen the actual happening. On behalf of the defence, Kamlabai, the widow of Ramrao was examined and it is because of the contrary versions of these two ladies that the conflicting decision in the High Court and the Court of Session have taken place. According to Shantabai it was her husband who had inflicted the injury. According to Kamlabai the injury was caused by one Kacharu, a son of Bhikha who had been missing from home for over 15 years and who had arrived and quarrelled with Ramrao and assaulted him. In support of the defence evidence of Kamlabai, three other witnesses were examined. One was C. Ananda Patil. M. P. who stated that his jeep had stopped near the level crossing because the gates were shut and