ANANDA SAKHARAM JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 61 of 1990 is filed by original accused No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1990 is filed by original accused No. 3 At the trial, four accused were charged under section 307, 323 and 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having in furtherance of their common intention, on 3rd of November, 1988, at about 10. 30 p. m. , on the Table Land at Panchgani, accused No. 1 stabbed P. W. 4 Dnyandeo alias Vinayak Dagadu Shinde and thereby attempted to commit his murder and all the accused voluntarily caused hurt and gave provocation to the said injured Vinayak. Pending the trial, accused No. 4 absconded. His trial was separated. The trial against accused Nos. 1 to 3 proceeded. By judgment and order, passed on the 27th of December, 1989, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1989, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara was pleased to convict accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 under sections 307, 323 and 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. For the offence under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code the accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. No separate sentence was imposed for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is impugned by accused Nos. 1 and 3 in the present appeals.

(2.) P. W. 4 Vinayak is the victim of the assault in question. Vinayak first narrated the incident to P. W. 1 Thomas Villiam Manthero who is a Maintenance Foreman of the M. R. A. Centre at Panchgani. He has lodged a complaint in respect of the incident which is at Exhibit 14. Prior to the incident, Vinayak was seen in the company of the accused by P. W. 6 Balasheb Dhondiba Parte, who is the nephew of the owner of Samarat Hotel. At the material time Balasaheb was sitting on the counter of the restaurent and he had seen the accused and Vinayak having an omlet in his restaurent. P. W. 9 Udhav Shankar Mardhekar is a taxi driver. He had seen Vinayak in the company of the accused after they left the Samarat. Hotel. These two witnesses are examined on the point of the accused and Vinayak being last seen together prior to the incident of assault in question. P. W. 2 Suresh Shankar Mardheker, who happens to be the brother of P. W. 9 Udhav, is a panch witness in whose presence the panchanama ( Exhibit - 6 ) in respect of scene of the offence was drawn. P. W. 2 Suresh has also scribed the panchanama (Exhibit - 17 ) in respect of the seizure of the clothes which were allegedly belonging to Vinayak. They were found in burnt condition. P. W. 3 Sakharam Shivram Kamble and P. W. 5 Krishna Kondiba More are panch witnesses, who have scribed the panchanamas ( Exhibits 32 and 33) in respect of the discovery of a knife and clothes at the instance of accused No. 1.

(3.) VINAYAK was first removed to the Municipal Hospital at Panchgani. He was examined by P. W. 7 Dr. Sou. Vima Raghunathrao. She gave him first aid and advised to remove him to the Civil Hospital. The Medical Certificate in respect of the injuries found on the person of Vinayak is at Exhibit-24. Vinayak was admitted in the Civil Hospital at Satara were P. W. 8 Dr. Anil Mahadev Shinde gave him treatment. P. W. 10 Pakirappa Sahadeo Patil is a Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Panchgani Police Station. He investigated into the offence P. W. 11 Mahadeo Shripati Gavade took over the investigation from P. S. I Patil. After completing the investigation Gavade submitted a charge-sheet. The Chemical Analysers report in respect of various articles which were sent for examination, is at Exhibit-10. This is all the evidence which has been led on behalf of the prosecution.