DEVIDAS BAJIRAO LAKHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for murder of Vithalrao Khaire under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined eight witnesses in support of the said charge. The trial Court convicted the appellant of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the incident was witnessed by one Mahadeo (P. W. 5) and a deaf and dumb girl. The incident took place on 4-5-1992. The statement of P. W. 5 Mahadeo was recorded on 14-5-1992. The statement of deaf and dumb witness was recorded on 1-8-1992 before the panchas, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 who are examined in the Court. The deaf and dumb witness and the Head Master who had interpreted the gestures made by the deaf and dumb witness on the strength of which the statement of the said witness was recorded, had not been examined by the prosecution. Though the trial Judge came to the conclusion that the pancha witnesses had supported the prosecution partly, yet their evidence was of no avail as the same came to be recorded very late. The trial Judge also came to the conclusion that the evidence of the pancha witnesses, in fact, has no much relevance and more so because the prosecution had not examined the deaf and dumb woman. The Trial Judge, however, relied upon the statement of Mahadeo (P. W. 5) on whose testimony the entire fate of the prosecution case rested. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are Ravindra (P. W. 3), son of the deceased, who found the dead body of his father in the field in the evening and lodged the First Information Report and Sumitra (P. W. 4), wife of the deceased, to establish motive of the appellant to kill the deceased. The motive, according to the prosecution was four-fold, viz. removal of the appellant from service by the deceased prior to the incident; quarrel between the appellant and the deceased regarding money; threat given by the appellant to the deceased that he would cut his head and the illicit relationship between the appellant and P. W. 4, wife of deceased. P. W. 6 Dr. Rathore was examined regarding post-mortem of the deceased; P. W. 7 was examined to prove that the deaf and dumb woman came running as a result of which P. W. 7 went towards the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased as also she later on saw P. W. 5 Mahadeo in the adjoining field. The Investigating Officer was examined as P. W. 8.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Daga appearing on behalf of the appellant urged before us that not only the pancha witnesses who were examined to prove the statement made before them by the deaf and dumb witness were declared hostile, but even otherswise, in the absence of examination of deaf and dumb woman as well as interpreter who had interpreted the gestures made by the said woman, the statement of deaf and dumb woman has absolutely no value. He then pointed out that P. W. 5 Mahadeo who is star witness of the prosecution, was kept in the Police custody for about eight days, but he had not disclosed anything during the first eight days, but ultimately his statement was recorded under the threat to implicate him to which statement not much value can be attached. He also urged that the prosecution has failed to prove motive; that the milkmen whom are initially suspected, had strong motive to eliminate the deceased on account of dispute of land between them and the deceased and even if it is held that there is strong suspension about the involvement of the appellant, the same is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant.