ASHOK DASHRATH WALDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Dashrath Walde, appellant herein and his brother Ankush Dashrath Walde (original accused no.2) and his father Dashrath Tanba Walde (original accused no.3) were tried for murder of one Anita wife of Raju Girole and also for attempting to commit murder of Raju Girole (PW1) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1998 by judgment and order dated15-10-1998 acquitted original accused no.2 Ankush and original accused no.3 Dashrath of the offences under Sections 302, 307 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant was convicted of the offence under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted for the offence under Section307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. In this appeal, the order of conviction and sentence passed against appellant is under challenge.

(2.) THE prosecution against the appellant and his brother Ankush and his father Dashrath arises out of incident that took place on27th April, 1997 at Dhamangaon (Railway) at about10. 30 p. m. in which the witness Raju Girole (PW1) came to be assaulted by appellant by inflicting blows by a scissor (Article No. 9) and in the same incident, his wife, deceased Anita who came to intervene to rescue him, was also assaulted with the scissor by inflicting blow on her chest as a result of which she succumbed to injuries. As per the prosecution case, as has been revealed through the evidence of witness Raju and also reflected in the report (exhibit 17) lodged by him at Dattapur Police Station, the houses of complainant Raju and that of accused persons are situated in front of each other. THEre was a water tap in front of the house of complainant Raju and it was noticed that the said water tap was broken. On the day of incident, when complainant returned home, on seeing Sumanbai, wife of accused Dashrath, he told her that it was not proper on their part to break the water tap. It is alleged that in the meantime, the appellant Ashok came there with a scissor in his hand and he at once inflicted a blow with the scissor on complainant Raju and his wife Anita when intervened, appellant Ashok gave a blow with that scissor on her chest. THE appellant also gave blows of scissor on the stomach of complainant Raju. He sustained injuries. Anita, as she was serious, was taken by auto-rickshaw to the hospital of Dr. Agrawal who advised her to be taken to the Government Hospital, Dhamangaon. Complainant Raju went to Police Station and lodged complaint (exhibit 17 ). Ramprasad Gule, PSI who was attached to Police Station, Dattapur on the basis of the report (exhibit 17) registered offence against the accused and proceeded to the place of occurrence. During the course of investigation, he made inquest panchanama and sent the dead body to the Rural Hospital, Dhamangaon for post-mortem. He also prepared spot panchanama and seized the articles which he found at the place of occurrence by making seizure memo (exhibit 13 ). All the accused were arrested on29-4-1997. He also recorded disclosure statement made by appellant Ashok and seized scissor in pursuance of the statement made by him. THE clothes of appellant Ashok were also seized. All the articles seized were sent to the Chemical Analyser. After completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhamangaon (Railway) who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) MR. Ahirkar, learned APP submitted that the evidence of witness Raju who is not only an eye-witness to the incident but is also one of the victims of the assault by the appellant at the time of incident that took place. His evidence is to be appreciated in correct perspective having regard to the fact that he has immediately lodged complaint (exhibit 17) by going to the Police Station after his wife Anita was shifted to the hospital. He submitted that despite the fact that there are certain omissions in the evidence of witness Raju, his evidence inspires confidence and that the Trial Court has committed no error in accepting his evidence. As regards the recovery of the weapon, he submitted that the evidence of Investigating Officer Ramprasad is sufficient to establish the scissor (Article No. 9) came to be seized in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant while he was in custody. He pointed out from the evidence that though the pancha witnesses did not support the factum of disclosure statement made by the appellant, the factum of seizure of the weapon has not been disputed and both the witnesses have stated about the seizure of the weapon in their presence.