SHAMRAO RAGHUJI DHOTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for the murder of Anjanabai under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant who is a Police Constable had gone to the hotel run by deceased Anjanabai and he lifted eatables and started eating the same. It appears that the deceased Anjanabai objected to the same and scolded the Police Constable. The appellant then went to the Pan Shop of Sheikh Shakil Ahmad (P. W. 1) which is adjoining to the said hotel and demanded pan. P. W. 1 Shakil asked the appellant to bring change and then only he would give pan to him. Appellant left the pan shop. After about half an hour, the appellant returned to the hotel run by deceased Anjanabai, took out an axe which was hidden in his clothes and assaulted with axe Anjanabai on the head. Beside this, the appellant also gave other blows to Anjanabai. The assault took place on 16-7-1986. The prosecution had examined twelve witness in support of the charge including three eye-witnesses besides two witness in support of dying declaration of the deceased. The dying declaration was not relied upon by the trial Court. The testimony of three eye-witnesses was accepted on the basis of which the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life had pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The same is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learned Add1. Public Prosecutor for State.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant has urged before us that there are contradictions in the testimony of witnessess; that two of the prosecution witnessess viz. P. W. 1 Shakil Ahmad and P. W. 6 Madhura have stated that their attention was drawn to the incident after deceased Anjanabai had fallen on the ground. In respect of testimony of P. W. 5 Vilas, it is urged that this witness had not stated before the Police that the appellant had inflicted blow of an axe on her head and as such, this witness was confronted with the statement in respect of which he could not assign any reason. It is also urged by learned Advocate for the appellant that the appellant had neither intention to kill nor there is any evidence on record to suggest that the injuries caused were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to her, the injured had died after about eight days of the incident and in the circumstances, the offence in question would not fall under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and at the most, it may be a case of causing grievous hurt under section 326 of I. P. C. or alternatively. It may fall under section 304, Part-II of I. P. C. She, therefore, contends that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court be sustained.