Advocates:
['GG MODAK', 'RN KHARE', 'RD DHAR', '', 'MADHIKARI', 'RS SUBHEDAR', 'SP KULKARNI APPOINTED', 'APP']

apeal654.04.odt 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.654 OF 2004

Keshao s/o. Paikuji Thedkar,

Aged about 35 yrs.,

r/o. Bori (Bara), Tah. Arvi,

Distt. Wardha.

........

APPELLANT

// VERSUS //

The State of Maharashtra,

Through P.S.O., Pulgaon,

Distt. Wardha.

.........

RESPONDENT.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mrs.S.P.Kulkarni, Adv. (appointed) for the Appellant.

Ms R.A.Deshpande, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J.

DATE : 13.07.2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the

judgment and order dated 24^th September, 2004 passed by 1^st Ad-hoc

apeal654.04.odt 2

Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.35 of 2002

whereby the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.500/-, in

default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three

months.

2.

Heard the submissions at the bar.

3.

The facts, briefly stated, are as under :

That one Deorao Vithobaji Pundekar (PW-3), resident of village

Bori, Tq. Arvi, District Wardha as well as accused herein Keshav Thedkar

were agricultulrists by profession. Accused Keshav was annoyed with

Deorao for the reason that Deorao was cultivating the field of one Dilip

Kaneri on batai basis. On the day of incident i.e. on 1^st December, 2001,

at about 6.45 p.m., when Deorao had tied his bullock in the cattle shed

and was proceedings towards his house, accused Keshav first abused

Deorao and later assaulted him on his left arm pit by means of a weapon

described as spear. On the basis of the F.I.R. in respect of the incident,

police registered Crime No.287 of 2001 at Police Station, Pulgaon.

apeal654.04.odt 3

Investigation followed. It appears that the weapon of offence namely

spear, which was found stained with blood, was recovered during the

course of investigation pursuant to disclosure statement made by the

accused under panchanama (Exh.44) and discovery made under

panchanama (Exh.45), in respect of which panch witness by name

Pandurang Kaneri (PW-6) was examined. According to the investigating

agency, the said weapon as well as the clothes of the victim and the

accused were referred to the Chemical Analyser and his report was

received as per Exh.53 which indicated positively that the weapon was

found stained with human blood. It was discovered at the instance of the

accused as also the clothes were also found stained with human blood.

Apart from the circumstantial evidence, prosecution has examined

complainant Deorao Pundekar (PW-3), eye witnesses Haridas Kurzadkar

(PW-5) and Dilip Kaneri (PW-1). They deposed about the quarrel between

the accused and the first informant as also assault by accused by means of

spear. The Medical Officer also examined Pravin Tekam (PW-2) who

deposed about requisition from the police (Exh.29) and nature of injury

which was incised wound behind left auxiliary region (2” x 1” x 1.5”).

Certificate was issued accordingly at Exh.30.

4.

Looking to the strong evidence : direct as well as circumstantial

apeal654.04.odt 4

in nature, it appears that the learned trial Judge appreciated the evidence

on record and came to the conclusion that the offence punishable under

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and accordingly, the

sentence was imposed. I have gone through the evidence led on record by

the prosecution as well as defence statement made by the accused.

Considering the nature of evidence, I do not find any reasonable ground

so a