BAPURAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the conviction for the offences punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir on 4.5.2012, the present Appeal is preferred by the original accused. The case in short is as under:-

(2.) P.W. 8 P.I. Mukund Deshmukh recorded the said F.I.R. (Exhibit 26). The P.I. came to know that the present appellant was also found in injured condition in front of Vyankatesh Clinic and was taken to Sub District Hospital for treatment. The injury certificate regarding him was collected. Thereafter, the P.I. recorded panchanama of the spot of occurrence i.e. Vyankatesh Hospital. The weapon of the offence i.e. sickle was seized from the spot. The photographer i.e. P.W. 7 Sanjay Kadojee was called who obtained the photographs of the place of occurrence. Some relevant articles were seized from the spot. Thereafter, the P.I. recorded the statements of various witnesses, including that of P.W. 5-Parmanand Jadhav. The appellant was arrested. The injury certificate was collected from the hospital, where the complainant had taken treatment and after carrying other usual investigation like sending blood stained clothes to the Chemical Analyzer, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

(3.) Before the learned Sessions Judge, in all eight (8) witnesses were examined. Out of them, P.W. 3 Rajkumat Dhyade and P.W. 4-Shivaji Mehtre, panch to the recording of the panchanama turned hostile. While P.W. 1-Sandhya and P.W. 2-Rushikesh deposed about the actual start of the incident and the fact of assaulting P.W. 1-Sandhya, P.W. 5-Parmanand Jadhav, being the neighbour, narrated about his mediation in the assault by the appellant. He also deposed that after reliving the complainant from the hands of the appellant, he has taken the complainant to the hospital of Dr. Chambule by auto-rickshaw and got admitted there. P.W. 6-Dr. Shrinivas spoke about the nature of the injuries observed by him on the person of the complainant and pointed towards various case papers and injury certificate at Exhibit 46 etc. P.W. 7-Sanjay Kadojee is the photographer, who has deposed about taking the photographs of the spot of occurrence and pointed towards the photographs obtained by him through digital camera exhibit 52 to 55 respectively. P.W. 8-Mukund has deposed about the course of investigation carried by him.