NAGUESH KRIAPPA MADAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and Order dated 25th July, 2000, passed against him for commi -ssion of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two and a half months passed by the learned Addi -tional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Sessions Case No. 5/98.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case in brief are thus: - One Mohammad Shafi Bepari (P.W. 14), is a beef vendor from Dhar -wad and his cousin Gudusab Bepari (P.W.9), sells beef at Nagamasjid, Ponda. P.W. 14 supplies bulls to P.W.9 and the deceased Mallappa Bhimappa Sangolli, who was popularly known as œBudda , used to bring the bulls from Dharwad to Ponda on foot and deliver them to P.W.9, for which P.W.14 used to pay him Rs. 300/ - at Dharwad and P.W.9 used to pay him an amount of Rs. 400/ - after delivery of the bulls. Usually Budda used to take about 5 days to reach Ponda from Dharwad, on foot. On 1st January, 1998 or 2nd January, 1998 at about 2 p.m., Budda left Dharwad with bulls to come to Ponda and P.W.14 had given him two notes of Rs. 100/ - and ten notes of Rs. 10/ -. The accused is from the same village wherefrom Budda comes. The accused who was also coming to Goa met Budda on the way prior to Mollem and both started coming together with the bulls. At about 9 a.m. on Sunday, i.e. 4th January, 1998, Budda and the accu -sed reached Gavegalli and had tea in the tea stall of P.W.10, Shivanand Hangal. While Budda was paying the charges for the tea, the accused saw the money which was with Budda. The accused and Budda left the tea stall of P.W.10, after about 10 to 15 minutes. Soon thereafter, one Mohan Dessai, P.C. Buckle No. 2386 (P.W.16) on duty at Check Naka of Mollem Check Post saw Budda driving the bulls behind Mollem Check Post and Budda was having hunter and stick and the accused was in his company. On the same day, i.e. 4th January, 1998, Budda and the accused reached the Panchayat Building of Mollem alongwith the bulls and they spent the night there and early in the morning of 5th January, 1998, they started proceeding further with the bulls. One Yellapa Guli (P.W.8), saw them near the village Panchayat building. On 5th January, 1998, at about 6.30 a.m. they went to the Hotel of one Vishram Gaonkar and his son Ashok Gaonkar and had tea and batatawadas. At about 7 a.m. on the same day A.S.I. Deu S. Raut Dessai, (P.W.11), saw the accused and Budda walking towards the Magazine of Salgaonkars at Cansau -lim -Mollem with the bulls. Budda had the hunter whereas the stick was with the accused. On the same day at 8 p.m. Sadanand Kerkar (P.W.1), Security Guard in the Explosive Magazine of Salgaokar who was in uniform, saw the accused, who, on seeing P.W.1 became nervous and upon being questioned, gave his name as Naguesh and told P.W.1 in broken Hindi œAdmi Mara . The accused then took P.W.1 inside the gate of the Magazine and showed the dead body of Budda, P.W.1 told the accused to wait there only and went to Mollem Out Post in order to lodge the complaint.

(3.) THE learned J.M.F.C. San -guem, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Margao. The lear -ned Sessions judge framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability. The prosecution led its evidence consis -ting of as many as 17 witnesses in support of the case and also sub -mitted documentary evidence. On the basis of the available evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the pro -secution had succeeded in estab -lishing the charge framed against the accused and, as such, it was proved that the accused had committed the murder of Budda at the said time and place with the intention of taking away the cash and accordingly passed the order of conviction and conse -quent sentence. Hence the appeal.