The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of the accused No. 2 Dilip of giving a single blow on the head of the deceased by means of a sword was found to be with the intention of causing the injury, and the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, leading to the conviction for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. These Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1999 whereby appellant/accused No. 2 Dilip Sonawane came to be convicted for the offences punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, along with accused No. 1 Mukund Sonawane and No. 3 Somnath Londhe, who were convicted for the offences punishable under section 323 and 504 read with 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and three months, on the respective counts.

2. The appellant/accused Dilip and the co-accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 323 and 504 read with 34 of the Penal Code and section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 with the following indictment:-

(a) Nagnath Parmeshwar Gaikwad (the first informant) is a resident of Tandulwadi. He was residing in Harijan Vasti, Tandulwadi along with his family members including father Parmeshwar and brother Navnath Gaikwad (the deceased). Accused No. 1 Mukund Sonawane and No. 2 Dilip Sonawane were also the residents of Harijan Vasti, Tandulwadi. Accused No. 3 Somnath Londhe is a relative of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and used to occasionally visit Tandulwadi.

(b) On 23rd August, 1999 in connection with the recitation of Ramayana a religious procession was taken out in village Tandulwadi. At about 5.30 p.m. the first informant was near the platform of Shetkari Sanghatana, adjacent to which there was a chewing betel stall (panpatti) of Siddheshwar Gurav. Accused came thereat. Accused No. 1 Mukund demanded the first informant to offer them a treat of chewing betel (leaf). When the first informant expressed his inability, the accused raked up quarrel and abused him in filthy language. The accused beat him by fists. Bhagwan Kadam and Hanumant Gavali, who were present thereat, came to the rescue of the first informant. Thereupon, accused threatened to cause harm to Navnath, the deceased, and rushed towards the informant’s house.

(c) The first informant followed the accused. The accused started to abuse and assault the deceased and Parmeshwar, the father of the first informant. Accused No. 2 Dilip went to his home and returned to the spot armed with a sword. The accused No. 2 Dilip gave a blow by means of sword on the head of the deceased. Due to the blow the deceased fell down. Accused No. 2 Dilip unleashed blows with the sword on Parmeshwar as well. Parmeshwar sustained injuries on right hand and waist. While the first informant was trying to rescue the deceased and Parmeshwar, he was also assaulted by the accused. After noticing that the deceased and Parmeshwar sustained injuries, the accused fed away.

(d) The deceased was brought to Madha Police Station. The Station House Officer, after noticing that the deceased was critically injured, forwarded the deceased to Primary Health Center, Madha. The first informant lodged report. Crime was registered at C.R. No. 17 of 1999 initially for the offences punishable under section 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Penal Code and section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951. As the deceased was in a critical condition, he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Solapur, where the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 24th August, 1999.

(e) The investigation commenced. Inquest was held. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Clothes which the deceased wore at the time of occurrence, were seized. The investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence and drew panchanama. The accused were arrested. The accused No. 2 Dilip made discovery leading to the recovery of the weapon of assault i.e. sword. The postmortem report and C.A. report were obt