DEEPAK CHANDRAKANT PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein has appealed against the judgment and order dated July 13, 2004 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2000, convicting him of the offence punishable under section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The High Court, while recording the order of conviction against the appellant herein, acquitted four other accused on a finding that the evidence as against them did not prove their complicity in the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 28-2-1998 accused-Arun Marathe, hereinafter referred to as A-1, had gone to see off his daughter at the Parbhani railway station since she was to go on a school trip organized by her school. The appellant herein, namely, Deepak Chandrakant Patil, hereinafter referred to as A-2, was also present at the railway station. The son of the deceased was also a member of the group which was going on a school trip to different places. It appears that A-1 took objection to the fact that no school teacher was accompanying the students. He insisted that school trip should be cancelled as no teacher was asked to accompany the students. It appears that the deceased took exception to the conduct of A-1 and an altercation followed. In that process, A-1 threatened the deceased with serious consequences. Nothing else happened on that day. On the following day i.e. on 29-12-1998, the wife of the deceased namely Surekha Sawargaonkar P.W.15 received a telephone call at about 4 p.m. and the caller identified himself as Deepak Patil, A-2 appellant herein. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant went to the school to find out the address of the deceased and thereafter made a call at about 4 p.m. There is some controversy as to whether P.W. 8 went to the school on 28-12-1998 or 29-12-1998. That, however, is not very material because there is direct evidence to prove that on 29-12-1998 the appellant went to the house of the deceased at 10.00 p.m. and asked him to accompany him since he was called by A-1 who wanted to talk to him. This was objected to by the wife of the deceased P.W. 15 saying that if A-1 wanted to talk to the deceased he should come to his residence. However, the deceased was persuaded to accompany A-2 to the house of A-1 and they both left for the house of A-1 on the motorcycle of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that an auto-rickshaw with three persons sitting in it followed them. These three occupants of the auto-rickshaw were later identified as accused Nos. 3 to 5 (A-3 to A-5).

(3.) When the deceased did not return home till 11 p.m., the wife of the deceased PW 15 along with her son PW-13 and one other person Narayan Gore PW-6 went to the house of A-1 to inquire about the deceased. At about 12 midnight when they reached the house of A-1 they met a person who feigned ignorance about the whereabouts of the deceased. In the meantime, A-1 came out and when questioned, A-1 gave an evasive reply about the whereabouts of the deceased. P.W. 15, the wife of the deceased, told A-1 that he would have to suffer serious consequences if he did not disclose the whereabouts of the deceased, to which A-1 commented that what more harm was left to be done. After waiting till about 2.30 a.m., when the deceased did not return, PW-15 went to the Police Station and gave an oral report to the effect that the deceased had gone with A-2, the appellant herein, and had not returned. After the oral report was lodged, two Constables of the Police Station went in search of the deceased. At about 3 a.m. they reached the house of A-1 and saw that he was talking to the appellant and one other person, apart from the wife of accused No.1. One of the Constables PW-12 as also PWs-15 and 13 inquired A-1 as to where the deceased was. The appellant who was present there stated that he had a quarrel with the deceased and his body was lying in an unconscious state in the garden behind the house of A-1. He accompanied PWs-12, 13 and 15 and others and showed them the place where the body of the deceased was lying. It was found that the deceased was dead. Thereafter, PW-15 went to the Police Station and lodged a First Information Report.