SHESHREDDI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. five thousand by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara by his judgment dated 22nd March, 2012 in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2010. The appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge has given benefit of exception (2) to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code to the appellant. The learned trial Judge has accepted contention of the appellant that he acted in private defence. However, the learned trial Judge was of the view that the appellant had exceeded the right of private defence and therefore, the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code. The prime question which arises for determination in the present appeal is as to whether conviction of the appellant could have been based on the extrajudicial confession which was a qualified admission of the fact in issue. It is held by the trial Court that the appellant had inflicted iron pipe blows on the head of the deceased. The trial Court has accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses before whom the appellant had allegedly confessed to have committed the offence. It is noted that the appellant, while admitting the act of inflicting iron pipe blows on the deceased, had qualified his statement by adding that he assaulted the deceased because the deceased had initiated the assault and was trying to strangulate the appellant. The question which arises for determination is, as to whether such a statement made by the appellant before the witnesses could be treated to be a confession. Before this issue is considered. it will have to be determined as to whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the statement was made by the appellant before them was acceptable or otherwise. For this purpose it is necessary to state, in brief, the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

(2.) The deceased was engaged in supplying Labours and the appellant was working as Labour on the site of Gosekhurd Dam. The appellant has temporary hut erected on the site itself where he was staying. It is the case of prosecution that the work of supplying Labour assigned to the deceased was withdrawn for some reasons. The deceased suspected that his assignment has been suspended due to the appellant's intervention.

(3.) The incident had occurred on 4th October, 2009 when the appellant was in his hut. After cooking the food, the appellant and his co-workers were about to have their meals. In the meantime, deceased Mulchand Moharkar came there in a drunken condition. He started abusing Alaram who was also a Labour. Alaram left the place due to abuses hurled by the deceased. Thereafter the deceased started abusing the appellant and accused him that the appellant was responsible for suspension of assignment of the deceased. It is stated that the deceased, all of a sudden, caught hold of the appellant by neck and there was a scuffle between the duo. During the course of said scuffle the appellant lifted an iron pipe lying nearby in the hut and inflicted three blows on head of the deceased. The deceased had fallen down. The appellant immediately went to Site Supervisor Mr. Bhumesh Reddi. Mr. Bhumesh took him to the police station and report of the appellant himself was recorded by the police. The investigation started on recording of the first information report. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The Medical Officer reported that there was extra dural hematoma and that the cause of death was 'extra dural haemorrhage due to trauma to skull'.