MAHADEV GAONKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the original accused, is challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 20th September, 2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No. 19/2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the judgment and order was pleased to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer rigorous life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. It was directed that the fine amount should be paid to the mother of the deceased. (Hereinafter, the appellant, shall be referred to as the "accused"). The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused was the uncle of the deceased and the families of both, the accused and the deceased, were residing in their ancestral house in separate parts of the house. The deceased was staying in his house along with his father, mother and brothers by name Prajyot and Pramod. The case of the prosecution further is that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased. According to the prosecution, a few days prior to the incident, the deceased had damaged the articles from the house of the accused, namely TV, fridge, etc. and the accused had become furious over it. Me was, however, restrained by his wife and daughter. On the day of the incident, in the morning at about 8.30 to 9.30, the father of the deceased had gone to purchase fish from the market and after he came back, the deceased, who was in the verandah of the house, was inquiring with his mother PW.4 Sundari Gaonkar as to where his clothes were. At that time, the accused who was sitting in the verandah on a cement bench, had altercation with the deceased Vithoba and assaulted him with a 'danda'. The case of the prosecution further is that the mother of the deceased PW.4 Sundari saw the said incident. As a result of the said assault, the deceased Vithoba collapsed and thereafter, he succumbed to the injuries. He was declared dead on arrival of the deceased in the hospital. The accused was thereafter arrested. The investigating officer recorded the statements of witnesses and charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined in all 16 witnesses. The evidence consisted of the eye witness account given by PW.4 Sundari, the mother of the deceased, and the evidence of wife and daughter of the accused, who turned hostile. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rested on the sole ocular testimony of PW.4 Sundari, mother of the deceased. He further submitted that the wife of the accused PW.6 Parvati Gaonkar did not support the prosecution case. He submitted that there were several contradictions in the statements of PW.4 Sundari and it was difficult to rely on the testimony of the said witness. He further submitted that the said witness was an interested witness and, as such, no reliance could be placed on her testimony. He further submitted that the mother of the deceased, in her examination-in-chief itself, had admitted that the deceased was alcoholic and was in habit of drinking alcohol and was picking up quarrels with several persons. He submits that she has admitted that the deceased used to assault his own father, his brother Prajot and also other members of the family, including the accused and his family members. He submitted that it was suggested in the cross examination on behalf of the accused that there was a fight between PW.8 Prajot and the deceased Vithoba and in the said fight the deceased died and the accused was falsely implicated in the present case.