SITARAM GOVIND KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant/Accused has fled this application for bail. The Applicant/Accused was convicted for the ofences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufer life imprisonment.

(2.) It is contended that the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Sessions Court, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.17 of 2013 is unsustainable on facts as well as law. The Applicant/Accused and the deceased were neighbors. The distance between the house of Applicant/Accused and the deceased is about 800 feet. On 01.02.2013 at about 12.30 p.m. the Applicant/Accused warned the deceased on account of an illicit relation between his son and wife of the deceased. Thereafter, deceased on his own went to the house of Applicant/Accused and quarreled with him. In the midst of the altercation, in the heat of the moment, the Applicant/accused picked up a scythe that was lying nearby and assaulted the deceased.

(3.) It is contended that the conviction under Section 302 is not sustainable. It is come in the evidence of PW-4 and PW-12 that the deceased went to the house of the Applicant/Accused and started quarreling with him. It is contended that the Applicant/Accused also sufered injuries. These corroborates the fact that the assault took place in midst of a quarrel. There was sudden fght between the Applicant/Accused and the deceased. The ofence falls under the fourth exception to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code. There was no pre-mediation on the part of the Applicant/Accused to commit murder of the deceased. It is contended that a single blow cannot constitute death by a cruel or unusual manner. The medical evidence refects that the deceased sufered a single fatal injury. These clearly shows that the Applicant/Accused did not intend to kill the deceased and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. It is contended that the alleged extra judicial confession is also not sustainable in law.