MANIK RAMCHANDRA YADAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant alongwith three others was tried for murder of Mahadoji Kamble under section302 read with Section34 of Indian Penal Code and also assault on others for which separate charge was framed besides other charges. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, by Judgment dated-21.2.97, convicted the appellant of the charge of murder under section302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. He was acquitted of other charges. THE other co-accused were acquitted of all the charges. THE appellant challenges his conviction in this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as revealed from evidence on record, is that there was litigation pending between the deceased family and the family of the appellant and in that connection the son of the deceased alongwith his wife and his mother had gone to Washim Court on the previous day of the incident. In that case, statement of Vimal (P. W.1), daughter of the deceased was recorded. THE appellant, alongwith others, gave threats to Vimal (P. W.1), her husband Prakash (P.W.2) and Jijabai (P.W.3), on account of which they had to halt for night at the house of their relative at Washim. On the next day morning, they returned home and at about10. 00 a. m. the appellant came alongwith other co-accused and questioned the deceased as to how his daughter had lodged false report and had given false evidence. THE deceased told him to forget the past events and begged pardon by folding hands, upon which the appellant took out an axe from his back side and gave axe blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which, he fell down and later died. THE prosecution had examined three eye-witnesses of the incident namely P. W.1 Vimal Prakash Khandare, daughter of the deceased, P.W.2 Prakash Pundlik Khandare, son-in-law of the deceased and P.W.3 Jijabai Mahadu Kamble, wife of the deceased. THE fourth eye-witness P.W.7 Gangadhar Mahadu Kamble, did not support the prosecution case. On the basis of evidence of eye-witnesses and other evidence on record, the Trial Court recorded finding of conviction under section302 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant. THE other co-accused were ordered to be acquitted since the evidence against them was not found sufficient.

(3.) THE prosecution has examined three eye-witnesses, who are, no doubt, closely related to the deceased, on account of which their testimony requires close scrutiny. P. W.1 Vimal has stated that on the previous day of the incident she alongwith her mother Jijabai (P.W.3) and husband Prakash (P.W.2) had gone to Washim Court, where her statement was recorded in the Court in a case against appellant Manik and others. She has further stated that Manik and others had given threat on the day of her evidence, on account of which they had to halt at the house of her relative at Washim. She has also stated that on the next day morning when they came to the house, their father namely deceased Mahaduji informed that Manik was taking rounds during the night time near their house. This evidence of P. W.1 has not even been challenged during the cross-examination. THE testimony of this witness on this aspect is fully corroborated by her husband Prakash (P.W.2) and also Jijabai (P.W.3 ). Both of them have stated that they alongwith Vimal (P. W.1) had gone to the Washim Court for evidence on the previous day and the accused had given threat, on account of which they had to stay at Washim for the night. P.W.3 Jijabai has also stated that her husband had informed her that the accused persons were taking rounds at the house. THE statement of these witnesses were also not challenged during the cross-examination. THE facts prove motive for the assault by the appellant.