BANDU YEDU METKARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for murder of Prakash Narayan Padawale under section 302 I. P. C. as also for causing injuries on Mainabai under section 323 of I. P. C. The prosecution had in fact examined 9 witnesses in support of the said charges. By impugned judgment dated 31st December, 1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, has convicted the appellant for murder under section 302 of I. P. C. and sentenced him imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under section 323 of I. P. C. and has been sentenced to undergo 3 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R. I. for 7 days. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant challenges his conviction in this appeal.

(2.) THE F. I. R. in this case was lodged by the appellant himself. The incident is reported to have taken place at 9. 00 p. m. on 2nd July, 1998 and the appellant lodged the F. I. R. on the next day morning. In this F. I. R. the appellant had given details as to how the incident in question had taken place. Besides this, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of eye-witness Mainabai P. W. 6, who is the sister of the appellant, but she did not support the prosecution case against the appellant. Two other witnesses P. W. 5-Haridas Baliram, paternal uncle of the appellant and P. W. 8-Uttam Lawate also did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution case thus primarily rests upon the F. I. R. lodged by the appellant himself with the police, motive for commission of crime and the presence of blood stains on the clothes of the appellant which were attached by the police when the appellant had gone to lodge the F. I. R. The prosecution had also led evidence of panch witnesses relating to recovery of chain at the instance of the appellant. Both these witnesses P. W. 3-Ratilal Lendave and P. W. 4-Sidheshawar Lawate also did not support the prosecution case.

(3.) THE trial Court found that part of the facts disclosed in the F. I. R. were admissible and were not confessional in nature and relying upon them besides motive as also blood stained clothes of the appellant has recorded the conviction of the appellant as aforesaid. The trial Court also took into account that the weapons of offence iron chain and iron rod were stained with human blood of "o" group which was the blood group of the deceased.