R.C. CHAVAN, J. :- This appeal by the State challenging acquittal of all the accused arraigned before the learned Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Sessions Trial No.50/94 was admitted only against the original accused no.1 Ashok Sukhdeo Raut the sole respondent before us.

2. The facts which led to the prosecution of the respondent along with three others are as under:

Victim Ashok Deshmukh has a farm adjacent to the land of accused No.2 Subhash Deokar and accused No.3 Namdeo. Namdeo used to irrigate crop in his field from the well in the field of deceased Ashok Deshmukh, for which he had compensated Ashok Deshmukh in grain. This arrangement led to quarrels. Accused No.2 Subhash had cultivated land of Ashok's brother on lease basis, and irrigation of crop in that land from the well in the field of victim Ashok Deshmukh had created problems. Respondent Ashok Raut had beaten victim Ashok Deshmukh, resulting in Ashok Deshmukh giving report to the police in the past. On the evening of 30-03-1994 the four accused persons assaulted victim Ashok Deshmukh. Ashok Deshmukh died on account of injuries sustained in the assault. His wife gave a report.

3. After performing inquest the police sent dead body for medical examination, performed the panchanama of spot, recorded statement of witnesses, seized incriminating articles and sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of investigation arrested and charge-sheeted the accused.

4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom the charge-sheet was submitted, committed the case to the court of Sessions at Buldhana. The learned Sessions Judge, Buldhana, charged the four accused of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code or in the alternative under section 302 read with section 120-B of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial.

5. The prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused who had taken the defence of denial. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence raised by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, held that charges were not proved and proceeded to acquit all the accused. Aggrieved thereby the State has preferred this appeal, which was admitted by this Court only against respondent No.1 Ashok Sukhdeo Raut by order dated 16-10-1996.

6. We have heard Advocate Yengal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in support of the appeal and Advocate Badhe for the respondent Ashok Sukhdeo Raut. With the help of both the learned counsel we have examined the evidence tendered at the trial in order to assess the correctness of finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

7. There is no eye-witness to the incident. The evidence of P.W.No.1 Nirmalabai widow of the victim Ashok, shows that accused Subhash Deokar as well as Namdeo had quarreled with the victim on account of irrigating their respective fields. She also stated that about 2 to 3 years before the incident, cattle of the respondent had trespassed in their land. This lead to quarrel between victim and the respondent and the victim was beaten by the respondent. Thus, even if the evidence of P.W.No.1 Nirmalabai about the motive is accepted at its face value, it may be seen that the respondent did not have any serious dispute with the victim. The dispute on account of trespass of cattle arose about 2 to 3 years before the incident and, therefore, it can not be said that the respondent had any axe to grind against the victim.

8. P.W. No.2 Tejrao stated that he knew the respondent. About three months before Tejrao was taken to the police station the respondent had come to him for getting a sword sharpened. According to Tejrao, respondent Ashok Raut threatened that if Tejrao refused to sharpen the sword, the respondent would take revenge. Tejrao had identified article 18 as the sword which he had sharpened. In the cross-examination, Tejrao stated that police had beaten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document