MOTIRAM BALARAM PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE deceased Vilas Patil and the appellant are both residents of Village Tambadshct, Taluka Pan, District Raigad. Sometime prior to October, 1987, a highway robbery had taken place in or near about gaothan of Tambadshet. The police had come questioning the villagers to find out the identity of the robbers. Vilas was one of the persons questioned and he told the police of the appellant being amongst the participants in the robbery. This disclosure became known to the appellant and from that time onwards he har -boured a deep -seated grudge against Vilas. On 21.10.1987 Vilas was at home with his minor son P.W. l Satyam. His wife Suman had gone to work in a field. Nearby lived Vilas's step -brother Vijay and step -sister Sadhna. The step -brother Vijay was not at home. Sadhna is also a child; While Vilas was lying at home the appellant came with an iron bar described by the witnesses as a Shig or Pahar with this weapon the appellant struck several blows on the person of Vilas. A part of the beating was witnessed by P.W. 2 Prakash who was then engaged in the chore of transporting sheaves to some crop threshed from his agricultural land to his home in the gaothan. This home Prakash faces that of Vilas. When Prakash berated the appellant, the latter took to his heels. Sat yam before whose eyes Vilas had been beaten, went to the neighbouring house and informed Sadhna of the happening inside his home. Sadhna went to the land where Suman was working and told Suman of what had taken place. Suman came running to her home and found her husband lying on the floor. Thinking that he was alive, she tried to push water into his mouth but to no avail. Word of Vilas's violent death had come to the ears of his cousin Avinash. Avinash did not know who the assailant was Therefore, when he contacted the Police Patil of Hamrapur, he did not name the appellant. The Police Patil, P.W. 4 Anant Patil came to the Pen Police Station and gave an information which is at Ext. 14. In this information it was said that Vilas had been murdered by "somebody". As offence was registered and investigation began. The corpse of the dead man was sent to the Primary Health Centre at Village lite. P.W. 5 Dr. Jagdale carried out the post -mortem examination and his notes are at Ext. 22. These show that there were as many as seven external injuries on the body of Vilas and that all these injuries were ante -mortem.

(3.) TO the charge of having committed offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was that he had not assaulted Vilas and that the members of the said persons family were testifying falsely against him. To substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant, the prosecution examined Satyam; Prakash, Suman; Anant and Dr. Jagdale. Even so important a witness as Sadhna not t6 speak of Avinash and the Investigating Officer, were no -examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the appellant, found him guilty on both the counts and imposed on him an appropriate sentence. The conviction and sentence awarded are assailed in appeal. Having heard Mr. Pane for the appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor, we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant Reversing the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, we allow the appeal and acquit the appellant Our reasons for so doing are given below: