2023:BHC-AUG:26653-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2019 Ranjeet s/o Haribhau Jadhav Age: 31 years, Occu: Labour, R/o Shingthala, Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. … Appellant [Accused No.1]

Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent …..

Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mrs. V. S. Choudhary, APP for Respondent-State.

.....

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

DATED : 13.12.2023 JUDGMENT [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] :

1. Instant appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Parbhani dated 22.01.2019 in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2016 convicting appellant-accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section

27 r/w 5 of the Arms Act.

2. PW6 Jaya set law into motion by lodging report at Charthana Police Station on 03.06.2016 alleging that at around 12.00 noon on on that day, appellant Ranjeet approached her and her husband while they were in the house and informed about some bad mouthing regarding her in the village. Deceased allegedly questioned appellant Ranjeet for defaming. According to her, around 3.30 p.m., while she, her husband and her mother-in-law’s sister i.e. PW7 Nilabai were in the house, appellant came armed with handle of axe, abused deceased Datta and gave blows of handle of axe on head and chest and also stabbed him with knife in the rib part. Remaining accused, namely, Haribhau, Sonabai and Sakhubai used sticks in assaulting him. Thereafter, they fled. Datta was taken to Civil Hospital, Jintur but he was declared dead and therefore, she lodged report Exhibit 81 which was made the basis of registration of crime which was investigated by PW10 PI Sudarshan Bhange, who arrested the accused, got spot panchanama and inquest panchanama drawn and got postmortem conducted. Recovery-discoveries were caused on memorandum of accused persons. Clothes of both, accused as well as deceased, were seized for sending them to Forensic Science Laboratory and after gathering sufficient evidence, they came to be chargesheeted.

3. Learned Sessions Judge, who conducted trial, permitted prosecution to adduce evidence and prosecution examined as many as

10 witnesses and relied on documentary evidence which was appreciated on hearing both sides and learned Sessions Judge reached to a finding that offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 r/w 5 of the Arms Act is made out only against present appellant. Remaining accused came to be acquitted from all charges.

Said judgment is now assailed before us on various grounds spelt out in the appeal memo.

4. In brief, it is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that implication is on weak and insufficient evidence. There was no motive to kill. According to him, incident had taken place as a result of quarrel on petty count. He would submit that evidence of PW6 Jaya and PW7 Nilabai fails to inspire confidence in the light of answers given by them in cross. According to him, recovery is also doubtful. No independent witnesses or panchas are examined. Only related witnesses are examined. According to him, even learned trial Judge has not brought to the notice of appellant the entire incriminating material against him by posing relevant questions during recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.] resulting into prejudice being caused. For all above reasons, he claims that it was not at all a case of homicide and in the alternative, it is his submission that, even otherwise case would not travel beyond culpable homicide not amounting to murder and definitely it is not a case attracting Section 302 of IPC.

5. In answer to above, learned APP would submit that there was one incident in the afternoon that day and subsequently, accused party again visited house of deceased getting armed with deadly weapons like handle of axe, knife and sticks. Eye witnesses PW6 Jaya and PW7 Nilabai have narrated the