IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, N.R. Borkar, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Rajaram Sakharam Pawar and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.440 of 2001
Decided On : 21-02-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302 r/w 34 & 504 and 506 (2) – Offence of Murder – Criminal intimidation - Both Accused and deceased are real brothers - There was a joint drum sticks tree - Deceased had plucked the drum sticks at about 4.00 pm from the drum sticks tree - On that count, there was a quarrel between Accused No.1 and deceased, and Accused No.1 had abused and threatened deceased - At about 11.30 pm while deceased was returning along with bullocks after giving water to them in river, Accused Nos.1 and 2 went near him, and Accused No.1 raised quarrel with deceased - Accused No.2 abused and threatened to the deceased - At that time PW-3 wife of deceased was standing in her courtyard - She noticed quarrel hence she went to spot - It is alleged that Accused No.1 lifted stone and gave a blow by it on head of deceased due to which the deceased fell on ground who were proceeding to watch cricket, heard shouts and quarrel, and hence they rushed to the spot and noticed assault on person of deceased by Accused No.1 - They went near deceased and saw condition of deceased heard the shouts, hence they went to spot and tried to give water and liquid food to deceased, however, they were not successful in doing so as deceased was already succumbed to the injuries - Whether really Kandalgaonkar and Valanju were present at the time of actual incident in question – Held, Court have noticed that Trial Court has meticulously dealt with entire evidence of prosecution and reached to a correct conclusion - Law is well settled that view taken by the Trial Court thereby acquitting the accused cannot be lightly interfered into, unless Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence comes to a conclusion that findings recorded by Trial Court are perverse and view taken was not plausible at all - In light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, if prosecution case is considered in its entirety, an irresistible conclusion is that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused - Findings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with evidence brought on record and there is no perversity as such – Court are of considered view that Trial Court has taken a plausible view and has rightly acquitted Respondents – accused - No case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and order - Criminal Appeal No.440 of 2001 stands dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. The Appellant/State has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 15/03/2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros acquitting the Respondents – original Accused Nos.1 and 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 & 504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (For short “IPC”).
The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under :
Both the Accused and deceased Madhukar are real brothers. There was a joint drum sticks tree. On 16/01/2000 the deceased Madhukar had plucked the drum sticks at about 4.00 pm from the drum sticks tree. On that count, there was a quarrel between Accused No.1 and the deceased, and Accused No.1 had abused and threatened the deceased. On 17/01/2000 at about 11.30 pm while deceased was returning along with bullocks after giving water to them in the river, Accused Nos.1 and 2 went near him, and Accused No.1 raised quarrel with the deceased. Accused No.2 abused and threatened to the deceased. At that time PW-3 Sundara -the wife of deceased was standing in her courtyard. She noticed the quarrel hence she went to the spot. It is alleged that Accused No.1 lifted the stone and gave a blow by it on the head of deceased due to which the deceased fell on the ground. Anil Kandalgaonkar (PW-2), Subhash Valanju (PW-4) and Sandip Rane, who were proceeding to watch the cricket, heard the shouts and quarrel, and hence they rushed to the spot and noticed the assault on the person of deceased by Accused No.1. They went near the deceased and saw the condition of the deceased. Tarabai Valanju and Anjali Valanju heard the shouts, hence they went to the spot and tried to give water and liquid food (Pej) to deceased Madhukar, however, they were not successful in doing so as the deceased was already succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter Anil Kandalgaonkar, Sandip Rane and Subhash Valanju went to Surabha Ghadigaonkar – the police patil of village Sonavade and informed about the incident to him. Thereafter Police Patil and Anil Kandalgaonkar went to Avalegaon Outpost and informed about the incident and then they went to Kudal Police Station, where Anil Kandalgaonkar lodged a complaint. The offence u/s. 302, 504, 506 of the IPC was registered.
3. Thereafter the police went to the spot and prepared the inquest report, the spot panchanama was also prepared, the stone and soil, soil mixed with blood and the articles were seized. The dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem. The Medical officer of PHC Kadaval conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased and noticed that the deceased died due to the injuries on his person. The clothes of deceased were seized. The accused No.1 was arrested on 18/01/2000 and clothes on his person i.e. Articles 6 and 7 were attached. The clothes were stained with blood. The seized articles were sent to C.A. Pune.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kudal, who registered the case as Reg. Criminal Case No.32 of 2000. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offences levelled against the accused are triable by the Court of Sessions.
5. Thereafter the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial. The defence of both the accused is that there was long standing enmity between them and deceased Madhukar over the land and house properties, and that deceased was not assaulted by Accused No.1, nor the incident as disclosed took place, and false case is lodged against them by taking dis-advantage of accidental death of deceased.
6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, during the trial the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses in support of its case. The Trial Court has recorded statements of accused u
Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.
Bishan Singh v. State of Punjab
C. Antony v. K.G. Raghavan Nair
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor
K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P.
Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of U.P.
Murlidhar@ Gidda vs. State of Karnataka
Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.