TUKAPPA TAMANNA LINGARDI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 29/04/1987 under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sawantwadi (Mr. S. R. Ganvatkar) had convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The name of the victim was Ajappa Fakirappa Dasapanawar. The appellant was also convicted of offences punishable under Ss. 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to police constable Desai who was on duty on the scene of offence at the relevant point of time. For the first mentioned offence, the appellant was sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer R. I. for one month. For the latter mentioned offence the appellant was sentenced to suffer R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer R. I. for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE offence in question is alleged to have taken place on 7/04/1986 at about 2 p. m. at Banda Bazarpeth. According to the prosecution story, a woman by name Gangava Naikkar, sister of the appellant, had reported at Banda police station that the victim was trying to assault her in Bazarpeth village Banda. She was a Kannada speaking woman and the A. S. I. who was on duty at the police station could not make out what she was saying in her language. Therefore, he had deputed constable Desai with her to go to the Bazarpeth and to bring to the police station the person against whom she had some grievance. Accordingly, constable Desai had proceeded to the Bazarpeth and found out the person viz. , the victim Ajappa. When constable Desai and Ajappa were about to leave the place for the police station, the appellant who was standing in the vicinity armed with a weapon cal led Koyta (a heavy broad sickle) came forward and started assaulting the victim. Constable Desai attempted to resist the appellant, but while doing so, he suffered an injury on his arm and fell down. The appellant is said to have made an advance towards the victim and given a-forcible blow on the neck of the victim Ajappa. Ajappa was beheaded. After he fell down on the ground, the appellant took the head part of' the body and threw up the same in the air to the height of about 10 to 15 feet twice or thrice. Thereafter, the appellant had kept the head of the deceased near the body and had then chopped the head into pieces. The brain matter fell out of the skull. Thereafter, again the appellant had picked up the head and thrown it in the air. At about the same time, police constable S. L. Sawant who was on patrolling duty on the Bazarpeth, had rushed to the spot and had snatched from the hands of' the appellant the sickle which was used for beheading the deceased. The appellant was then brought to the police station and F. I. R. was lodged by constable Desai. The F. I. R. was recorded by the A. S. I. on duty. The offence was registered at C. R. No. 36/1986 of Banda police station and Dy. S. P. Bhujangrao Shinde had undertaken the investigation. The weapon of attack was attached under a panchanama, inquest was held, panchanama of the scene of offence was made and the blood-stained clothes found on the person of the appellant were seized. The investigation proceeded further and statements of several witnesses who were on the scene of offence at the relevant point of time were recorded. Finally, a charge-sheet was submitted on 1-7-1986 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It appears, however, that as the Chief Judicial Magistrate was on leave, the charge-sheet was, in fact, received by the Addl. Sessions Judge who was himself in charge of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The case was committed to the Sessions Court on 5/08/1986 and charge vide Exh. 4 dated 14/11/1986 was framed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, against the appellant for the offences alleged.

(3.) THE evidence was recorded in course of time and the accused was defended at the trial by an Advocate appointed by the State under the Legal Aid Scheme. The defence of the appellant at the trial was that at the relevant point of time, he was insane and that as such, he did not know the nature of the act committed by him. He had specifically claimed that he had fallen within the scope of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code and that, therefore, he should not be held guilty for any of the offences alleged. He had examined in defence three witness to prove his defence. It as contended at the trial that in the circumstances of the case, the appellant could not be held guilty of any of the offences charged against him ant that he deserved an acquittal.