MADHUKAR PUNDLIK INGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and order passed on14-10-1999 by Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 90/1995 whereunder appellants were convicted for offence under sections 302, 120-B of I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo R. I. for two years.

(2.) THE incident in question which gave rise to the prosecution against the appellant took place on4-7-1995 at about2. 00 a. m. Deceased Dnyaneshwar Pakhare and the appellants were residents of Warud Kulat which comes within the limits of Police Station, Yeoda, Taluka- Daryapur, District-Amravati. Deceased and his brother - Sunil (P. W.1) were due to receive some amount of money from appellant Madhukar. THErefore, in the evening of 3-7-1995, they went to the house of Brahmadeo, where they met appellant Madhukar and asked him about the repayment of money. Madhukar instead of making repayment of money, abused them and expressed that they might do whatever they want. Deceased Dnyaneshwar and Sunil returned home. Dnyaneshwar, his wife Padma (P.W.3) and daughter Mangala (P.W.2) and son were sleeping in the house which was under construction. Witness - Sunil, his mother were sleeping in the courtyard. Padmabai and Mangala woke up hearing Dnyaneshwar saying, "i am dying". Padmabai and Mangala saw the accused one standing at the head and other at the legs and the third - Madhukar was seen stabbing Dnyaneshwar by means of swordstick. Mangala and Padmabai seeing that assault on Dnyaneshwar shouted and hearing that witness Sunil woke up and rushed inside the house and grappled with Madhukar and caught the swordstick. Madhukar whisked himself free and managed to escape. Madhukar, Shyama and third accused person - Lahu ran away. Dnyaneshwar lay dead in the pool of blood with stab wound in the chest, abdomen, back and coil of intestine had protruded out of the injury in the abdomen. Sunil and his mother went to the Police Patil Umesh Singh (P.W.7) and informed him of the occurrence who came to the spot and saw Dnyaneshwar lying dead and scribed a report - Exhibit 112 requiring witness - Sunil to hand over the same to Police. THE witness - Sunil in turn went to the Police Station and gave his report against the accused. Police arrived at the place and drew spot panchanama, prepared inquest notes, seized blood stained swordstick that was lying on the spot and also seized blood stained quilt and blood mixed earth from the spot. THE dead body was sent for postmortem. Same day the accused persons were arrested and their clothes were seized. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was filed. THE learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) THE evidence of witness - Sunil, Padmabai and Mangala whose presence at the place at the time of occurrence can not be disputed and it is consistent as to the fact that the assault was made by accused - Madhukar only. But at the same time the witnesses have stated about the presence of the appellant nos. 2 and 3 at the time when accused - Madhukar was assaulting Dnyaneshwar. About the identity of the accused, there is no dispute. THE witnesses were knowing the appellants and they are residents of same village. THE trial Court has held that the appellants had hatched conspiracy to commit murder of Dnyaneshwar. THErefore, the trial Court has convicted the appellant nos. 2 and 3 alongwith appellant no.1 for the offence stated above for committing murder of Dnyaneshwar. Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted vehemently that except presence of appellants no.2 and 3 there is no iota of evidence even to spell out that they shared common intention and hatched criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Dnyaneshwar. THE learned A. P. P. very fairly conceded that except presence, no role is attributed to the appellant nos. 2 and 3.