BALA BHAGWAN RAUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the broad day light on 6th of November, 1985, in front of village workshop Jairam met with homicidal death as a result of serious injuries suffered by him on his head, hands and legs allegedly at the hands of the appellant. First Information Report was lodged by Datta, PW1 the grandson of Jairam-deceased.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, Damodar, PW6 along with his brother Sahebrao, both carpenters-cum-blacksmiths were working at their workshop in the afternoon, when Pundlik, PW7 and Gajanan came there for a chat. Deceased-Jairam also came there a little later. While PWs 6 and 7 and others were chatting with the deceased, the appellant came there armed with a stick and suddenly started assaulting Jairam with the stick. He inflicted a number of blows on the deceased. PW6, PW7 and others ran way from the spot. After sometime PW6 and PW7 came back along with Waman, PW3 and found Jairam lying on the ground having sustained number of injuries on his head, hands and legs which were bleeding. The appellant was not there. Dutta, PW1 procured a bullock cart and removed his grandfather to the Police Station and after lodging the first information report took the injured to the dispensary where Jairam was pronounced "dead on arrival". In the trial Court, the prosecution with a view to connect the appellant with the crime mainly relied upon the evidence of Dutta PW1, Waman PW3, Damodar PW6, Pundlik PW7. The prosecution also relied upon the recovery of the shirt and dhoti of the appellant on the basis of the statement made by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The weapon of offence, stick, was also taken into possession from the appellant. The stick, shirt and dhoti were sent to the chemical examiner, who, however, found on examination that there was no trace of blood on any of the article.

(3.) The trial Court after a detailed and critical appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that there was no motive at all for the appellant to have assaulted the deceased. It was also found that the evidence of PW6 and PW7 was not believable and for arriving at that finding their unnatural conduct of not making any effort whatsoever to rescue the deceased while he was being assaulted only by means of stick was taken note of. The trial Court also found that the circumstantial evidence relating to the seizure of the stick from the appellant as well as the recovery of his clothes, pursuant to his disclosure statement, did not connect him with the crime at all. The trial Court noticed that the prosecution had withheld Bala who is reported to have given the information to his elder brother Dutta, PW1 regarding the assault on the deceased, Sahebrao and Gajanan, who were also alleged to be the eye-witnesses and opined that on that account the prosecution case had been rendered doubtful. The trial Court accordingly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.