CHANDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the first accused who was convicted by the trial Court. It is not in dispute that two other accused-A2 and A3 were acquitted of the charges. Though an appeal was preferred by the State challenging the said acquittal, at the stage of admission itself, the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, we have to now concentrate only with regard to appellant-accused 1.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that, appellant and complainant-Pandu are all from the same Village Bikkunaik Tanda in Kunchawaram Police Station limits in Gulbarga District. The case of the prosecution unfolded before the Trial Court is as under: one Ramsingh had brothers and also sons in the said Tanda. P. Ws. 1 and 10 are the sons of Ramsingh, P. W. 8-Sitaramsingh is the brother of said Ramsingh. The family owned landed property, and we are now concerned with one of the properties i. e. , Survey No. 85. Mr. Sitaramsingh got share of a portion in Survey No. 85. Certain portion of said survey number went to the share of Mr. Tulsiram (elder brother of complainant) and Pandu (P. W. 1-complainant ). It is brought on record that house sites were formed in this survey number and sold to several residents of the said Tanda. In the meanwhile, the Government had acquired the said land in Survey No. 85 for the purpose of formation of sites under "ashraya Scheme". Hence, the purchasers of the sites were demanding return of money. There were disputes and quarrels between the alleged purchasers and also Seetharam and Tulsiram. In this regard, panchayat was held in the presence of elders of the village and so also the family members of complainant especially complainant, tulsiram-P. W. 10 and Seetharam-P. W. 8. P. W. 9-Chandru was Dalapati of the said Tanda who also took part in the panchayat. In the said panchayat, it was agreed for return of a portion of money. However, accused who is also the purchaser of certain sites, demanded for return of entire money and there was some sort of exchange of words, wherein he declared to finish off Tulsiram and complainant-Pandu. With the intervention of Chandru-P. W. 9, he went away.

(3.) PANDU was living separately along with his wife, three sons and one daughter. House of his uncle, brother and father were also situated in the same locality within the vicinity of each other. House of P. W. 9 is also near the house of Pandu. On the fateful night on 25-3-1993 at about 9. 00 p. m. , after having dinner along with his family members, Mr. Pandu, as it was summer, settled on the payal of the house in front of the main door along with his three sons. The wife and daughter slept inside the house. The deceased Vijayakumar, the last son, aged about 4 years, was sleeping on the chest of complainant. Suddenly in the midnight, he woke up on hearing the cry of his son Vijayakumar "baa" (in Lambani language it means father ). He also felt something heavy on his head. Therefore, he woke up. Then he notices A1 holding a stone and standing near his head trying to drop the said stone. According to the complainant, the said stone was dropped on the head of Vijayakumar and then the accused ran away. On hearing the cry of Vijayakumar and pandu, the inmates and the neighbours woke up and came to the spot. They all noticed head injury on the deceased Vijayakumar. With the help of neighbours, they took them to hospital. Unfortunately, before they could reach the hospital, Vijayakumar succumbed to injuries. Therefore, he went and lodged a complaint as per ex. P. 1 which was registered in Crime No. 3 of 1993 on the file of kunchawaram Police. A spot mahazar was conducted as per Ex. P. 3 at the spot. The bloodstained mat, bloodstained mud, bloodstained waist thread and shirt of the deceased were also recovered. Inquest was conducted in the hospital itself. The dead body was arranged for postmortem was done in the hospital, opining that the death was due to cerebral haemotoma, as a result of head injury. Merely 18 witnesses were examined in support of the case of the prosecution. No evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant-accused apart from marking exhibits. Several material objects were also marked for the prosecution. P. Ws. 1, 8, 9 and 10 are examined in order to prove the alleged motive i. e. , the dispute with regard to the formation of sites and return of money. P. W. 2 the wife of complainant speaks about the said quarrel and the fact that, on hearing the cry of her husband, she comes out of the house and notices the injury on her son. P. W. 3 is the witness for Ex. P. 2-inquest on the dead body of the deceased. So also P. W. 4 is another inquest witness. P. W. 5 is the spot mahazar witness i. e. , Ex. P. 3. P. W. 6 is the husband of sister of complainant who also gives certain facts before the Court about immediately what happened at the scene of offence after the incident. P. W. 7 another son of P. W. 1 complainant who is alleged to have seen the accused throwing the stone on the head of vijayakumar. P. W. 11-Doctor Pandurang who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Vijayakumar and the post-mortem report is at Ex. P. 4. His preliminary opinion is at Ex. P. 5. P. W. 12 is the Constable who took the dead body for post-mortem and after post-mortem, he handed over the dead body to the relatives. Ex. P. 3 is the spot mahazar conducted in the presence of Police Constable P. W. 12. P. W. 13 is the witness examined for recovery of bloodstained shirt M. O. 2 from the person of accused in the Police Station under Ex. P. 6. P. W. 14 another witness for the spot mahazar Ex. P. 3. P. W. 15 is the witness to another mahazar recovery of m. Os. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 at the spot. P. W. 16 is the KEB Operator who speaks about the supply of electricity on 25-3-1993, especially during relevant period. P. W. 17 is the PSI who registered the case and did most of the investigation and lastly, P. W. 18-CPI, who did put of investigation and filed the charge-sheet.