2004 Supreme(Bom) 1304
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Coram : V. G. PALSHIKAR, ANOOP V. MOHTA
CHANNAPA ADVYAPPA AMBI
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
C. A. J. C. A. 343 Of 2000
Decided on : SEPTEMBER 15, 2004)
The court confirmed the conviction for murder based on the testimony of witnesses and the absence of mitigating circumstances.
Headnote:
MURDER - Conviction under section 302 of IPC - [IPC Section 302] - The court confirmed the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his father based on the testimony of multiple witnesses and the post mortem report. The court found no mitigating circumstances to reduce the punishment and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
A son killed his father and was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, appealing against the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-weighed the testimony of witnesses and material on record and found the impugned judgment and order to be correct. The testimony of eye witnesses and the post mortem report supported the prosecution's case, and there were no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge.
Issues: Conviction under section 302 of IPC, testimony of witnesses, presence of mitigating circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of multiple witnesses, including eye witnesses and the post mortem report, to confirm the conviction under section 302 of IPC. The absence of mitigating circumstances led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, and dismissed the Appeal.
( 1 ) A son killed his own father. Therefore, he was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant-accused has appealed against the said order of conviction.
( 2 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj held that the appellant had committed murder of his father A-dvyappa (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") on 26th May, 1999, at about 6. 00 a. m. in front their house at Ambi vasahat at village Hitni, Taluka Gadhinglaj, and therefore, charged him under section 302 of IPC and, after due trial, imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
( 3 ) THE prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. No defence witness is examined. There are three eye witnesses to the unfortunate incident in question. They are, PW2, Sonabai Virupaksh Arnbi, PW5, Ujwala Subhash Kunte and PW10 Virupaksh Annappa Ambi. The other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution including the mother of the accused, PW6, Dundwa Advyappa ambi. PW4, Chanappa Dundappa Khandale saw the accused standing with a scythe near the dead body of the deceased. PW11, Dr. . Mallikarjun Virupakshappa athani conducted the post mortem on 26* May, 1999, and recorded in all, 17 ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased and further proved that those injuries could be caused by the weapon in question. The cumulative effect of those injuries caused the death of the deceased, PW12, Rajaram Rangrao Paul psi of Kavala Naka Police Chowkie arrested the accused and reported the matter to the Gadhinglaj Police Station and supported the prosecution's case. PW3, bhimappa Babu Killedar, the Kotwal village of Hitni reported the incident to the police, after noting the place of the incident in question. PW8, Shamsher mohammad Khalip is a Panch witness to the Inquest Panchanama, PW9, Rajaram annappa Jadhav is a Panch witness to the blood stained clothes of the accused. PW13, is a Panch witness to the recovery of the incriminating article i. e. Scythe. PW14, Ashok Shankarrao Survagandh is the Investigating Officer attached to the gadhinglaj Police Station, through whom the Inquest Panchanama of the scene of offence, the post mortem certificate, recovery of incriminating article No. 7 (scythe) are proved. He had sent the articles to the Chemical Analyzer for analysis. He had
submitted the charge sheet. The accused denied the charges. The trial commenced and the appellant was convicted.
( 4 ) HEARD the Advocate for the respective contentions raised in the appeal. We have re-weighed and re-appreciated the testimony of all the witnesses and the material placed on the record including grounds raised. After going through the same, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order is correct. The point-wise reasons, as recorded, are sufficient to maintain the impugned judgment and order. There is no perversity or any reason made out to interfere with the duly proved prosecution's case. We have also noted the testimony of three eye witnesses, PW2, PW5 and PW10 who had witnessed that in the morning at about 6. 00 a. m. , the accused was giving blows to the deceased with the scythe. The deceased was lying on the ground when the accused was giving blows. PW2 and P10, when they heard the shouts at about 6. 00 a. m. , they opened the door and saw that the deceased was lying on the ground and the accused-appellant was giving blows with the scythe. PW2, Sonabai asked the accused not to beat. However, the accused warned her not to interfere. The accused also threatened her and, therefore, she went to her house and chained the door. PW10, Virupaksh, in his testimony, supported the testimony of PW2, and the above incident, PW5, Ujwala had also noticed the noise and, therefore, she went out of her house. She saw that the accused was giving blows with scythe to the deceased