PRAKASH CHANDRAPPA CHANNUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) THE appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by Addl. Sessions judge for Gr. Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1440 of 1995 dated 20th December, 2002. The accused appellant was convicted under the provisions of section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo RI for one month.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that the accused and his family were residing in the adjoining hut of the complainant and her husband. In fact, there was a common partition wall made of tin sheets between two houses. There was a quarrel between the wife of the accused and the complainant. The wife of the accused had assaulted the complainant and therefore, a N. C. complaint was lodged against her. In the evening when the accused and the husband of the complainant returned home, the complainant and her husband went to the Doctor and when they were returning at 9. 00 p. m. , the accused came from behind and stabbed the complainants husband with a knife and thereafter ran away. A complaint is lodged and accused and the husband of the complainant was taken to the hospital where he was operated by the Doctors. The trial Court convicted the accused u/s. 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for five years. The appellant is challenging the said judgment and order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken me through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and judgment and order passed by the trial Court. He submitted that the evidence u/s. 307 was not made out from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution, it was clear that the accused also had sustained injuries and that one of the injury was an incised wound and as such, could not be termed as a minor injury which could have been overlooked by the prosecution. It was submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injuries which were suffered by the accused and therefore, the genesis of the offence has not been brought on record by the prosecution and no explanation has been given so far as injury on the accused are concerned and therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. He submitted that the ingredients of section 307 have not been proved by the prosecution. He submitted that in order to prove that an offence u/s. 307 is committed, the prosecution has to prove that the accused intended to cause death of the deceased or had knowledge that the injuries which are caused by the accused are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, the accused according to the prosecution had come from behind the complainant and had inflicted two wounds and had thereafter fled the scene of the offence. It was submitted that therefore, if the accused had an intention of committing the murder of the deceased, he would have waited to ensure that the deceased died as a result of the injury. It was further submitted that the knife with which the injuries were cause could not be said tobe a lethal weapon as though the blade was 6" in length, it was hardly few centimetres in breadth. He has taken me through the evidence and also the judgment of the trial Court and has assailed the findings of the trial Court.