PRAKASH WAMAN SHEJUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, property and legality of the judgment and order passed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater bombay in Sessions Case No. 848 of 1994 whereby the learned Judge had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under the provisions of Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 299 Clause 3 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for 10 years.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 27. 3. 1994 at about 10 p. m. deceased Laxman Salve after taking the meal went to the house of his neighbour for hearing the sons. His wife was inside the hut along with her children. After sometime, she heard her husband shouting by taking her name. Therefore she went out and saw a quarrel between the appellant and her husband Laxman in which the appellant assaulted the deceased with fist blows and kicks on his chest and abdomen. She also saw the appellant twisting the genital organ of the deceases. She intervened and with the help of neighbours brought her husband to her house. He was not able to sit and, therefore, lied down. Within 10 to 20 minutes he died. Nanda lodged FIR in the police station. The investigation started. The post mortem examination was performed and after completing the investigation the appellant was charge sheeted and lastly he faced the trial in which he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Shri Sait, counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilty of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution case totally rested on the evidence of the wife of the deceased named Nanda. He pointed out that the independent witness, the neighbour Smt. Dhrapadabai did not support the prosecution case and, therefore the learned trial Judge had committed an error of coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilty of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thereafter had further gone to commit the error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. According to Shri Sait, the appellant should have been acquitted.

(3.) IN the alternative Shri Sait submitted that the sentence of RI for 10 years is too serve for the act which has been attributed to the appellant. He submitted that the sentence needs to be modified and reduced to the term undergone by the appellant.