SUBHASH HIRAMAN BEDWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), appellant is taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.77 of 2015 dtd. 20/9/2016, by which appellant - accused no.1 is held guilty for offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for committing murder of Sultan Gani Pathan.

(2.) Accused, informant himself and his deceased son Sultan Gani Pathan were all residing at Hiwarkheda in the same lane. Accused no.2 Hiraman had taken up construction work of latrine and bathroom at a place which was situated between house of accused and informant. Both informant and accused staked claim over the said piece of land and on such count there was dispute. On 8/1/2015, finding some stones at the disputed spot, accused no.1 Subhash alongwith co-accused namely Hiraman and Satish went to house of informant to question the same and both coaccused were holding sticks. Accused no.1 knocked the door of Naved (son of informant), who is residing with his family in a room of house of informant. As Naved was not available at home, PW7 Sumayya, daughter-in-law of informant asked from inside the room as to who has come. At that time, informant PW1 Gani asked his deceased son Sultan to see as to who has come. Finding accused at the doors, deceased Sultan questioned accused. Informant PW1 Gani also reached there. Altercation took place between accused no.1 and Sultan. Accused whisked out knife from his pocket and stabbed Sultan in his stomach as a result of which he collapsed. PW1 Gani, father of deceased went to rescue and even tried to hold Sultan. At that time, accused fled away. Injured Sultan was shifted to hospital but on examination, he was declared dead and therefore, PW1 Gani, set law into motion by lodging FIR at Kannad Police Station, on the strength of which crime was registered. After PW10 Dnyaneshwar Shamrao Payghan investigated the crime, chargesheet was filed against all three accused for commission of offence under Ss. 302, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After explaining the charge, trial was undertaken during which prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. Accused - convict denied to lead any evidence. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence and on hearing both the sides, learned trial Judge reached to a finding that prosecution has succeeded in establishing offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC but only against accused no.1 Subhash and thereby he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life whereas accused nos.2 and 3 were both acquitted from all the charges.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellant would challenge the impugned judgment and order on following grounds :