BAPU TATOBA AHIWALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 8-3-2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case no. 227 of 1998 wherein the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo R. I. for 5 months.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus Complainant Prakash Patil was running a factory under the name and style as "rubber Plast Industries" in M. I. D. C. Kupwad, since 1991. In the year 1998, there were 9 workers in the factory of the complainant. It was being run in two shifts. The deceased as well as PW-3 Balasaheb Umdale were also the workers in the factory in the year 1998. On 1-8-1998, the deceased, accused and pw-3 Balasaheb Umdale were working in the second shift. At about 7. 30 a. m. Balasaheb umdale informed the complainant about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased over a woman by name Sangita with whom accused had illicit relations. It appears that the deceased also desired to have relations with her which aspect gave rise to the quarrel between them. Hearing this from witness Balasaheb, the complainant changed the shift of accused and asked him to work in day shift on next day i. e. on 2-8-1998. Thereafter at about 11. 00 a. m. the complainant went to his house. On 2-8-1998 at about 8. 30 a. m. the complainant went on work as usual, however, it was learnt that father of one Chandrakant one of the workers, was serious and then it was informed that he had expired. Therefore, the factory was closed and all workers went for funeral. After the funeral, they returned. The complainant went to his house. Even though the complainant has asked the accused to work in the first shift on 2-8-1998, he did not come to work in the first shift on that day. At about 5. 30 p. m. , the complainant asked witness Shedbale to wait in the factory till arrival of the workers in the second shift as till that time workers of second shift had not come. At about 7. 30 p. m the deceased, accused and Balasaheb Umdale had already started the work. The complainant asked them whether they will work or will stop the work. The complainant was informed that they would work till meals time and will stop the work and thereafter complainant went to home. At about 12. 15 midnight, Balasaheb went to the complainant's house and informed him that accused had assaulted the deceased by means of iron bar on his head on the place where the deceased was sleeping. Complainant was also informed that accused had given threats of killing him. Then complainant and balasaheb went to the factory and saw that deceased was lying in a pool of blood. Complainant went to the house, called others and thereafter informed the police, whose complaint was filed by M. I. D. C. Kupwada police Station. Offence was registered at C. R. No. 50 of 1998 against the accused under section 302 of the I. P. C. Investigation commenced, in which course the inquest panchnama was made and the body was sent for post-mortem examination. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Panchnama of scene of offence was also prepared. The accused was found on 12-8-1998 at pune and was brought to Sangli. He was put under arrest. Incriminating articles seized in the course of the investigation and were sent to the C. A. for examination, whose report was received and is part of the record. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was sent to the Court of law. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session.

(3.) THE Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the impugned offence for which he pleaded not guilty. Defence of the accused was that of total denial of any criminal liability. The prosecution led its evidence at length on which basis the learned trial Judge was seen sufficient to bring home the guilt for the impugned offence and accordingly proceeded to pass the order of conviction and sentence in the aforesaid manner. Hence the appeal.