EKNATH MOTIRAM GAVIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 5-10-1998 by III Additional Sessions Judge, nashik in Sess. Case No. 86/98 the appellant named above has preferred this appeal oh the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as verbally canvassed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant before us.

(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned Counsel for the defence and the prosecution we have scrutinized the record and reappreciated the evidence.

(3.) THE prosecution story as emerges from reappreciation of evidence on record stated briefly is that on 25-1-1998 accused and the deceased went to : market and came back. There was some money to be exchanged on account of common sacrifice of goat, consumption of meat thereof. When some villagers came to ask the deceased about money he said it will be paid later oh and went to the accused to claim his share of money. Incidentally it is liable to be noted that both the deceased and the accused are real twin brothers. When the accused went to the deceased to demand money there was some verbal altercation and the deceased was taken away by his son and wife. While they were so returning the accused came out of his house with an axe and gave a blow of that axe on the left side shoulder of the deceased as a result of which he collapsed a'nd died. The matter was reported to police, investigation was started, accused was arrested. On completion of investigation he was charged under section 302 of I. P. C. and the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses to prove its case that the accused committed murder of his brother. Of these eight witnesses four are eye-witnesses to the incident. Two are witnesses to the quarrel that took place between the accused and the deceased few hours prior to the axing of the deceased by the accused. P. W. 3 Dr. Hemlata jakatdar conducted post-mortem has proved that the injuries found on the dead body were answering the same description as given by eye-witnesses who saw the assault. The last witness being Investigating Officer. We have scrutinized the evidence of eye-witnesses as aforesaid and they have given a very good description of what exactly transpired on the fateful day. P. W. 1 jijabai Gavit widow of the deceased stated that the deceased Kashinath went to accused's house demanding Rs. 50/- out of which Rs. 20/- were to be given to the villagers towards expenses of goat sacrificing. On hearing exchange of heated arguments the witness along with her son proceeded to the house of the accused, persuaded the victim and started taking his back. When they were so returning the accused entered his house came out with an axe gave one blow with the said axe to the victim and the victim was killed. The said blow according to the witness was given on the neck on the left side. This eyewitness account of P. W. 1 gets material corroboration on all points from the deposition of other eye-witnesses. They are P. W. 4 Shantilal Gavit, son of the victim, P. W. 6 Ramdas Gavit neighbouring witness, P. W. 5 Ganpat aher who also stated that he saw the accused coming out of the house with an axe and giving a. blow to the deceased. He also says that the said blow was given on the neck on the left side. It will thus be seen that all the four eye-witnesses corroborate each other and there is therefore no reason to disbelieve any of them. Even panchnama of the body as describes the injury that was found on the body and they description also matches the ocular testimony of all the eye-witnesses.