The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions related to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar dated 08-02-2018 thereby convicting appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

2. Shrirampur Taluka Police Station chargesheeted appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC on the premise that on 20-12-2015 between 04:00 p.m. to 04:30 p.m. accused appellant came to the field of deceased Rajendra and demanded extra saplings from him. When deceased refused, quarrel took place and thereafter, appellant mounted attack on deceased by means of wooden handle of spade. He also used the handle for pressing neck of deceased Rajendra. Deceased was shifted to hospital where Doctor examined and declared him dead.

PW3 Ashok Shirole, brother of deceased, set law into motion on the strength of which, Shrirampur Taluka Police Station registered crime No.I-148 of 2015 and said crime was investigated and on its completion, appellant was chargesheeted. Prosecution adduced evidence of in all 13 witnesses and relied on documentary evidence like FIR, inquest panchanama, post mortem report, recovery panchanama etc. Defence denied to lead any evidence. After appreciating evidence of prosecution and on hearing both sides, trial Judge held death of Rajendra to be homicidal one and also held charges proved and thereby convicted present appellant as above, which is now questioned by way of instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant :

3. The sum and substance of submissions advanced by learned Counsel for appellant is that here even if case of prosecution is considered as it is, according to him, it is not a case attracting charge under Section 302 of the IPC. He pointed out that there was no premeditation or motive or even intention to kill deceased. That going by very story of prosecution, occurrence has taken place as a result of sudden quarrel which took place on the spur of the moment at the spot. Accused had not been armed and he has rather used wooden handle of agricultural implement. Therefore, under such circumstances, charge framed itself was misplaced, erroneous. Secondly, he would point out that infact here there is no eye witness. Some information is alleged to be passed to informant that too on telephone and on the basis of hearsay information, crime has been registered. He pointed out that surprisingly there was no bleeding injury, but shirt of deceased is shown to be blood stained. He also pointed out that initially occurrence was reported as AD and therefore, very genesis of occurrence has not been established by prosecution. Recovery is also at a belated stage.

Learned Counsel would strenuously submit that deceased died because of so called blunt trauma to liver. That deceased was a weak person. That internal impact was never intended. That there is no supporting forensic evidence and for all above reasons, it is his submission that case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and initial burden not having been discharged by prosecution, he prays interference of this Court.

On behalf of State :

4. In answer to above, learned APP pointed out that prosecution went for trial with cogent and reliable evidence. There are eye witnesses, whose testimonies have not been dislodged inspite of cross-examining them at length. He would submit that even if incident was fall-out of quarrel, according to him, the nature of article, the manner of its use clearly show that appellant intended to kill deceased and therefore, he is rightly chargesheeted and tried for the charge of murder. Recovery is at his instance. Deceased was declared brought dead by the Doctor. Serious crime has been committed. Persons, who were party to the occurrence, are examined and therefore,