ARVIND RAGHUNATH KADAM Vs. PANDURANG SHANKAR KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITTIOTER absent. None present for him. So also Respondent Nos. and absent. None presenter them. Shri Saste present for respondent. No. 3. State of Maharashtra. By this revision application, the petitioner has assailed the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by Sessions Judge ratnaniri in Sessions Case No. 9 of )1995 by which he learned Sessions judge acquitted Respondent nos. 1 and 2 of the charge framed against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The prosecution case in brief can be stated as mentioned below :-

(2.) DECEASED Gangaram Kadam was the resident of village Posara-Bitdrti and he was residing in a hamlet known as Sadewadi along with his wife geeta, his parents Raghunath and Laxmibai, his brothers Shantaram and Arvind. sister Chandra, sister-in-law Jayashree and other family members. The said family owned a paddy tana situated in the precincts of village Koyadar. Respondent. Nos. 1 and 2 are the real brothers and they are cousins of deceased Gangaram. They were also resident of village Posara-Budruk and their house was situated at a distance of 60 to 70 feet from the house of the deceased. They also owned a land. It was towards the East of the land of the deceased. here was a footpath running along the boundary of the land of the deceased Gangaram in the past. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 used to take their cattle by the said footpath hut thereafter, as the prosecution case shows, they abandoned it and they insisted that they were entitled to take the cattle through the land of deceased Gangaram and, on account of that there was a dispute between the deceased Gangaram and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the other side. On 75. 7. 1994, at about 5. 30 p. m. police patil of village Posare-Sudruk called a meeting in the said land of deceased Gangaram for settling the dispute between them. But the dispute could not be settled. On the contrary, there was some difference between Respondent No. and on one side and deceased Gangaram on the other side.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case, after the said meeting at 6. 15 p. m. when the deceased, his parents, his wife and brothers were present in the house, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 went there and challenged - the deceased and threatened him by expressing their intention to take the revenge. Thereafter at 6. 45 p. m. deceased Gangaram vent to zorewadi, Another hamlet situated at some distance from Sadewadi to meet one Ramaji Zore who was ill. After meeting him, deceased Gangaram left the house of Ramaji Zore and started coming to his house but was murdered near a streamlet in the way. As he did not return to his house, his brothers went for searching him and after interrogating Ramaji Zore they learnt that he had left his house. As they did not find while coming to the house of Ramaji Zore, they took the help of the residents of Zorewadi and by the help of a patromax they searched and found that the dead body of Gangaram was floating on the water of the said streamlet. An information was given to the police. The F. I. R. of Arvind was recorded, investigation starred. During the investigation some blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the accused. They were articles 11 to