KHUSAL @ ANANT CHINDU BHUNDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant/original accused No.1 Khushal @ Anant Chindhu Bhunde along with accused No.2 Vithal Nivrutti Kurpe came to be charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC"). By the impugned judgment and order dated 7th May, 2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 383 of 2007, the present appellant/accused No.1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. So far as original accused No.2- Vithal Nivrutti Kurpe is concerned, he came to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:

(3.) Pw No.1 - Bapu Maruti Bandal, PW No.2 - Pandurang Somaji Bandal and PW No.3 - Vikas Ramchandra Bandal are the eye witnesses of the incident in question. PW No.1 - Bapu and PW No.3 - Vikas, however, have not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, their evidence is rightly not considered by learned Sessions Judge. PW No.2 - Pandurang who is another eye witness has deposed that deceased Subhash was his real brother and they were residing together. One Raju Bandal who is his cousin brother also resided at Bavdhan. There was dispute over immovable property between deceased Subhash and Raju Bandal. PW No.2 - Pandurang further testified that Raju Bandal and the present appellant were friends as they were working in same organisation in their capacity as Chairman and Director respectively. The present appellant was intervening in the dispute between deceased Subhash and Raju Bandal. PW No.2 - Pandurang further deposed that the appellant could not settle the dispute between deceased Subhash and Raju and, therefore, he used to spit every time he saw deceased Subhash.