KASHINATH SAKHARAM KADALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 21/11/1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions case no. 158 of 1996 whereby he has been convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 and 323 IPC and awarded a consolidated sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo three months R. I.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is as under :- THE deceased Khandu Gavit, injured Kakadibai Gavit PW 4 and injured Vinubai (not examined) are the father, mother and sister respectively of the informant Laxmibai Dhule PW 1. PW 7 Dhaklya Lakhan is the husband of Vinubai. On 21/12/1995 at 10 a. m. the informant Laxmibai Dhule and her husband went to Peth for marketing where Vinubai and Dhaklya Lakhan met them. Dhaklya Lakhan asked Laxmibai and her husband to accompany them to Masanvihar as he wanted to take his son Chintamani to see a baba. Dhaklya Lakhan brought Khandu Gavit and Kakadibai to Peth. THEreafter, all of them went to Masanvihar where they reached at 8 p. m. At Masanvihar, they went to the baba named Kashinath (the appellant ). THE appellant without saying anything started assaulting Laxmibai's parents by sticks resulting in her father succumbing to his injuries on the spot. When Laxmibai's father was being assaulted she tried to intervene, but co accused Janabai asked her not to intervene or else she would be beaten. THEreafter, Kalabai (wife of the appellant) put a coal on the palm of Vinubai causing her burns.

(3.) THE investigation was conducted in the usual manner by PSI More PW 13.During the course of it, he sent Vinubai and Kakadibai for medical examination. Both of them wee examined on 22/12/1995 at 4.30 p. m. THE former sustained a boil (burns) on right palm of the size of 4 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm and the latter sustained a contusion on the back of the dimensions of 5 cm x 8 cm. Same day, PSI More arrested the appellant. On 24/12/1995, during the course of interrogation, the appellant expressed his willingness to get the sticks recovered. Consequently, he sent for public panchas, out of whom one namely Suresh Waghchure has been examined as PW 12.In his presence, he recorded his willingness in a panchanama. THEreafter at about9 a. m. on the pointing out of the appellant from behind the appellant's house, from inside the bushes, the appellant took out two sticks which were seized under a panchanama. On completion of the investigation the appellant, his wife Kalabai and his neighbour Janabai were charge sheeted.