BALASAHEB RANOJI SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/orig.accused against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28 th April, 2004 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.52 of 2003. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/ in default to suffer RI for one year. Further, for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, the appellant/accused was sentenced to suffer RI for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : Appellant/accused and victim Ratanbai were acquainted to each other. Ratanbai was running a teastall in the locality of Powar Colony on Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur. Accused was also working there as a building labour. Accused and one of his friends wanted the meals on daily basis and they were introduced to one Suman Naik PW3. Suman Naik was doing the business of providing food on messbasis. As such accused started taking food at the place of Suman Naik PW3. Apparently, according to the case of prosecution appellant/accused and Ratanbai (since deceased) were very well knowing each other. However apparently there was some dispute as in the afternoon of 5 th December, 2002 as there was an incident in that locality during which appellant/accused assaulted Ratanbai when they were proceeding from the road. That time appellant/accused was accompanied by one more woman. According to the case of prosecution, there was some quarrel between appellant/accused and victim Ratanbai and during that quarrel appellant/accused lifted one bamboo stick which was lying by the side and hit Ratanbai on her head. After such blow, Ratanbai fell on the ground. Thereafter also appellant/accused inflicted 23 blows and thereafter he along with another woman ran away from the spot. Also according to the case of prosecution said assault was witnessed by PW10 complainant Yemanappa and PW3 Suman Naik. Said PW10 Yemanappa was also one of the building construction labourers and he was doing the work along with his wife at the same site near the scene of offence. He was knowing appellant/accused by face, however was not knowing his name. He was knowing the victim Ratanbai and was also well acquainted with her as she was running a teastall in the same locality. On that afternoon of 5 th December, 2002 complainant PW10 Yemanappa witnessed the assault and thereafter saw that the accused left the spot and ran away. PW3 Suman Naik also witnessed the incident when she was near the spot. As she was knowing appellant/accused and also victim Ratanbai, she tried to intervene. However, appellant/accused pushed her away by pulling her hairs and also assaulted her with bamboo stick. On this, Suman went away, but still did witness the incident as to assault on victim Ratanbai.

(3.) Without going into much details of the stages of investigation, suffice it to say that PW10 Yemanappa lodged the complaint to the police after attending the police station. That time, he did not give the name of appellant/accused. However, stated that he would identify the accused and he was knowing him by face. During investigation, spot panchnama was conducted. Victim Ratanbai died on the spot. Inquest panchnama was conducted. Dead body was sent for postmortem. Initially search for the accused was conducted and he was arrested on the next day i.e. on 6 th December, 2002 and his blood stained clothes were taken charge of. After completion of investigation, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and was tried and ended in conviction, as detailed above, which is under challenge in the present Appeal.