HARI BALASAHEB YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 4/04/1987 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 217 of 1986 convicting the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 for offence under section 302 read with 34 of I. P. C. and also convicting the accused Nos. 1 and 2 only for offence under section 324 read with 34 of I. P. C. and for the offence of murder the accused have been punished to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 1000/-, the appellants/ original accused have preferred this appeal.

(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned Counsel Shri Ramrao Adhik appearing on behalf of the accused and the learned A. P. P. Ms. Kantharia, for the state we have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence therein. Mr. Adhik the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused took us through the evidence of two eye-witnesses and pointed out that it is not liable to be accepted because of several contradictions and omissions that exists. According to the learned Counsel, the evidence on record was grossly insufficient to warrant conviction of the accused persons. Then taking us through the evidence in detail he pointed out that in any event, no overt act is attributed to accused No. 3, who is more than 70 years old now. There is no evidence by the prosecution that his accompanying the accused Nos. 1 and 2 was after sharing common intention with them. These submissions of Mr. Adhik were countered by A. P. P. Ms. Kantharia who explained the discrepancies and omissions as immaterial and pointed out to us that the evidence of two witnesses if cohesively read its worthy of credence and has been rightly accepted by the learned trial Judge, who also pointed out certain evidence, which corroborates the statement made by the eye-witnesses. She therefore claimed that the judgment and order of conviction is liable to be maintained.

(3.) WE have already pointed out that the reappreciation of evidence is on the submission made across the bar. P. W. 1 is one Vyanketesh who had prepared the map of the scene of offence and has proved it before the Court. Factually there is 110 dispute regarding the occurrence and place where it occurred. P. W. 2 is one V. E. Chaugule. He was a panch witness in the panchanama of the dead body and he proves the panchanama Exh. 13. P. W. 3 Narayan S. Yadav is another panch witness who proves panchanama Exh. 15. Under this panchanama the blood stained articles were sent for Chemical analysis. He is also the panch to the spot panchanama and that panchanama is also duly proved by him as Exh. 5. _