JUDGMENT - M.S. VAIDYA, J.:---The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik had convicted the present appellant, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1988 on his file, of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution story as it emerges from the record is as follows :

The appellant is alleged to have murdered, on 21st December, 1987 at about 10 p.m. his wife's brother Ramdas Santu Pawar in front of the residences of both of them at village Lingame, Taluka, Kalwan, District Nasik. Santu was the father of deceased Ramdas and several years ago, when Ramdas was a minor and Santu was ailing of some ailment, Santu had brought to his house the accused as anillatom son-in-law to look after Santu's agricultural property at Lingame. In course of time, the daughter of Santu, that is the elder sister of deceased Ramdas, was married to the appellant. About 9 or 10 years before the incident of offence, Santu had died. Till then, and for a few years after the death of Santu, the lands of the family of Santu were being cultivated jointly by the appellant and deceased Ramdas. Thereafter, they had separated and a separate portion of the residential house of Santu was given to the accused and his wife for their residence. A portion of about 3 acres of land also was separately given to the appellant for cultivation and for earning the livelihood of his family. The appellant lived in the house given to him with his wife Kamlabai and his son Shantaram. The portion of the house which was in the possession of deceased Ramdas and his family, (which consisted of his mother Sakhubai, wife Somibai, younger sister Suman and the children), was adjoining the portion allocated to the appellant. The relations between the two families were cordial, though at times there were reportedly some domestic quarrels here and there. On the date of the offence, i.e., 21st December, 1987, deceased Ramdas and his friends, including P.W. 2 Chintaman, had gone for purchase of onion seedings. They returned to Lingame in the evening and thereafter, deceased Ramdas had invited P.W. 2 Chintaman and one Waman to his residence for food. P.W. 3 Somibai was informed of this at about 7 p.m. and thereafter, she had started cooking food. The food was ready within an hour or two and as it was being made ready, deceased Ramdas had himself personally gone out and brought to his house, in a short while, P.W. 2 Chintaman and their common friend Waman. It appears that, in the meanwhile, the appellant had learnt of the guests being invited to dinner. He had felt, probably, irritated over that fact itself and had then demanded from deceased Ramdas some amounts allegedly due to him for the agricultural work done by him and/or his son Shantaram in the field in the recent past. This resulted in some hot exchange of words. The inmates of the family had heard this hot exchange of words, and P.W. 3 Somibai, the wife of the accused, Kamlabai and Shantaram, the son of the accused, had tried to pacify him. They managed to take the appellant to his own residence. It also appears that P.W. 2 Chintaman had some problem about his bullock, that bullock being not keeping well, and that he had, therefore, asked for the bullock from deceased Ramdas. Deceased Ramdas had, therefore, untethered from the cattle shed a bullock belonging to the appellant and had brought it to the open space in front of the house and had tethered it there. The appellant, who was already irritated, then came out by the rear entrance of his house, armed with an axe, and had assaulted deceased Ramdas with it. The blow of the axe fell on the head of deceased Ramdas with such a force that the blade of the axe got stuck up in the head of deceased Ramdas. When P.W. 2 Chintaman tried to remove the axe, he could not do so. The appellant himself, therefore, removed the axe and withdrew himself to his own residence. Leaving the axe there only, the appellant had th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document