RAJU @ RAJAN KARTAIYA HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/orig.accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 21 st October, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.432 of 2002. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/, in default to suffer SI for six months. Appellant/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 37 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : Victim Muttayya was residing in Dharavi area along with his family members including his eldest daughter by name Chandrika, his son then aged about 13 years one Prabhu Muttayya (PW1) and another daughter Lalita and his wife. Appellant/accused Raju @ Rajan Harijan was residing in the same locality of Dharavi, Mumbai. Said appellant/accused was known to one G. Shrinivasagam Pallar (PW2), Singyaraj (PW3) and Babu Harijan (PW4).

(3.) According to case of prosecution, appellant/accused Raju was teasing Chandrika elder daughter of victim Muttayya. At times, he used to caught hold of her hands and was trying to molest her. He was making gestures for getting sexual favours and also at times was giving flowers to her. Chandrika was not responding to such advances of appellant/accused. At times, she had told him that she would teach him a lesson by slapping with the help of footwear. Apparently due to this situation appellant/accused was enraged with said Chandrika and also with her family members. The incident happened at about 11:30 p.m. or so on 1.1.2002. On that night at 9:00 p.m. victim Muttayya had closed down his stall of vending vada pav & tea etc. and he was proceeding to his house. That time his two daughters and son Prabhu (PW1) were accompanying him. That time appellant/accused accosted them and he obstructed the way of Muttayya on the road. Earlier to this incident, apparently there was reprimanding of appellant/accused by Muttayya due to eve teasing incident and that time Muttayya had warned him not to indulge in such activities again or otherwise Muttayya would teach him a lesson. As such on this background, on the night of fateful incident appellant/accused obstructed victim Muttayya and told him to do what the victim had earlier threatened by cutting the hands of appellant/accused. That time apparently appellant/accused was well equipped with the weapon of assault i.e. a chopper/big knife. Said weapon was tucked near the waist under the lungi worn by appellant/accused. There was an altercation between victim and appellant/accused and victim Muttayya told him that he will not do any such thing like cutting the hands etc. However, apparently appellant/accused was determined to teach a lesson to the victim and took out chopper/big knife hidden near his waist and assaulted the victim on his chest and other parts of the body. Victim sustained severe bleeding injuries and probably died on the spot. The gravity of the injuries can be felt from the contents of the postmortem report as reported by Dr. Harish Pathak (PW6). Relevant extract of examinationinchief of said PW6 Dr. Harish Pathak is reproduced as under :