JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special Leave is directed against the Judgment and Order of April 1/2 of 1971 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay confirming the conviction of the appellant under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life passed thereunder for causing the death of one Padmakar, Kotwal of Trimbak aged about 35 years by drowning him in Moti Talao (tank) on the night intervening 30th November and 1st December, 1968, when the latter was heavily drunk.

(2.) Briefly stated the case as put forth by prosecution is-8 days prior to the date of the occurrence, the deceased sent Deubai (P.W. 12), an Adivasi married woman, whom he was keeping as his mistress for the last four years to get him a bottle of liquor from the appellant who carried on the illicit trade of preparation and sale of Ghasta (country liquor). On getting the bottle of liquor, Deubai gave one rupee note as price of the liquor to the appellant but instead of accepting the same, the appellant offered her a five rupee currency note and tried to induce her to leave Padmakar and stay with him. Deubai, however, spurned the offer and apprised padmakar of the incident whereupon the latter who was standing at a short distance from the appellant's house rushed to the house and remonstrated with and scolded the appellant. At 8-30 p.m. on November 30, 1968 Padmakar took Deubai with him to see a play which was being staged in Trimbak. Shortly after the commencement of the show, Padmakar told Deubai that they would not see the play and would go back to their house. Much against her wish, Deubai left the theatre in the company of Padmakar with a view to return to the latter's house. On the way, Padmakar took Deubai to the one room tenement of the appellant where the appellant entertained both Padmakar and Deubai with Ghasta and himself also joined them by taking the same. After a short while, Deubai wanted to leave for her house but Padmakar did not allow her to do so and asked her to lie down and go to sleep. While Deubai thus lay asleep, Padmakar and the appellant continued taking Ghasta. All this happened in the presence of the appellants's son Motiram (P.W.4), a lad of about 11 years of age. While Deubai lay asleep and Padmakar was in a state of inebriation and unconsciousness due to excessive consumption of Ghasta, the appellant and his son Motiram went away to see the drama. After seeing the drama, the appellant and Motiram returned to their house. On reaching the house, the appellant called out Padmakar and tried to rouse him up by shaking him but the latter did not respond as he was heavily under the influence of liquor. The appellant thereupon lifted Padmakar and took him to a nearby lavatory from where he shouted to Motiram to get him a Chaddar (bed Sheet) from the house. Accordingly, Motiram took a Chaddar and handed it over to the appellant who used it for wrapping up Padmakar, carried him towards Moti Talao and threw him in the tank which was about 21 ft. deep with the result that he got drowned and died. On the morning of the following day i.e. December 1, 1968, the appellant left his house telling his son, Motiram, that he was going to Nasik. On the same morning, Padmakar's dead body was found floating in Moti Talao (tank). On hearing the news, Padmakar deceased's younger brother Dattartaya (P.W. 16) rushed to the scene of the occurrence and after identifying the dead body to be of his elder brother Padmakar, went to the police station and lodged F.I.R. (Exh.4) In this report it was inter alia stated by Dattatraya that the appellant had caused the death of Padmakar as he wanted Deubai to stay permanently with him. Trereupon Ramchandra Puranik, P.S.I. (P.W. 22) repaired to the tank, took charge of the dead body, held an inquest and started investigating the cause of the death of Padmakar. Dr. H. H. Mohsini, who performed the autopsy opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia caused by a drowning. It was after a vigorous search that the police was able to arrest the appellant on March 8, 1969.

(3.) On completion of the investigation, the appellant was proceeded against and tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.