The key legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 302 and Section 34 of the IPC to establish the appellant's guilt in the murder case.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appellant/original accused No.1 Khushal @ Anant Chindhu Bhunde along with accused No.2 Vithal Nivrutti Kurpe came to be charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC"). By the impugned judgment and order dated 7th May, 2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 383 of 2007, the present appellant/accused No.1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. So far as original accused No.2- Vithal Nivrutti Kurpe is concerned, he came to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:

The first informant- PW No.1 - Bapu Maruti Bandal runs a business of selling vegetables. Deceased - Subhash Somaji Bandal and Pandurang Somaji Bandal are the relatives of the first informant and they had dispute over immovable property with their cousin brother - Raju Bhagwan Bandal. The prosecution case further proceeds that the present appellant was mediating the dispute between deceased Subash and Raju. However, the appellant could not settle the matter and, therefore, he used to spit upon seeing deceased Subhash. Raju and the present appellant were friends as they were Chairman and Director respectively in one and the same organisation.

On 13th November, 2006, deceased Subhash came at the home of the complainant Bapu at about 10.00 to 10.30 hours in the morning and both of them took tea. Then Subhash left his motorcycle for servicing and at about 12.00 noon again came at home of the complainant - Bapu. At the relevant time, Subhash was standing in front of Space Care Workshop and nearer to barbed wire fencing of Krushna Shanti Residency. In another 10 to 15 minutes, the present appellant came rushing on red coloured motorcycle at the site where deceased Subhash was present and another person wearing helmet was a pillion rider. The present appellant - Khushal raised quarrel with deceased Subhash on account of land dispute and when exchange of words were going on, he and the person wearing helmet assaulted deceased Subhash with weapon like gupti and as a result Subhash fell down.

On receiving report, FIR No.194 of 2006 came to be registered at Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body of deceased Subhash and also seized clothes of the deceased and recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. During investigation, the Investigating Officer also seized the motorcycle, helmet as well as the clothes of the accused and forwarded the seized property for chemical analyzation. During investigation, a weapon viz. gupti was recovered from the present appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before learned magistrate and as the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, learned magistrate committed the matter for further trial to the Sessions Court at Pune.

As stated above, the present applicant along with accused No.2 were charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC then pleaded not guilty of the charge. The prosecution, in order to prove their case, examined 10 witnesses including 3 eye witnesses, medical officer, investigating officer and pancha witness.

Learned Sessions Judge, after going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, came to the conclusion that prosecution proved that the present appellant committed murder of deceased Subhash and consequently convicted him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The original accused No.2, however, got benefit of doubt and he was acquitte