MAHADEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Additional Sessions - J. Judge, Amravati by ORDER, dated 17. 11. 1988 recorded a finding of conviction for an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against appellant-accused Mahadeo for having committed murder of his daughter-in-law Chandrakala on 4. 9. 1987 at about 12 noon, by giving blows with the aid of a sickle: The conviction amongst others, is based on dying declaration (Ext. 24) tendered by deceased Chandrakala to Executive Magistrate and eye account of P. W. 1 Shantibai and P. W. 6 Shriram.

(2.) SHRI Daga, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has not disputed the finding of conviction. However, he urged that taking into consideration the facts as made apparent on record by the prosecution, the act of the accused could not be covered under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the accused assaulted deceased Chandrakala while he lost control and was under grave and sudden provocation. He further made a submission that the act of the accused is covered by the first exception to section 300 of Indian Penal Code. In the submission of the learned Counsel, the accused could be punishable at the most for the offence under section 304, Part I of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) SHRI Paranjape, the learned additional Public Prosecutor, opposed this submission. According to him, there was no cause for the accused being provoked. Even otherwise, a little annoyance could not be either sudden or grave. The accused mercilessly dealt three blows on the person of deceased Chandrakala with a sickle, which is a deadly weapon and as such, accused is guilty of the under and it has been rightly held by the trial, Court that he is liable to be punished under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. In view of this rival claim, we propose to examine the material on record.