PHULSINGH BHAVSINGH JARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by appellant Phulsing Jarwal who was accused in Sessions Case No. 114/1195, against the Judgment and order passed on27-01-1999, by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in which appellant was convicted for offence under Section304-II and Section201 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, respectively.

(2.) I have heard Mr. D. S. Bharuka, learned counsel for the appellant/original accused and Mr. A. V. Gorhe, learned A. P. P. for the respondent/state. I have also gone through the Judgment and evidence recorded in this case, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The appellant was tried for having committed murder of one Sk. Mohmad Sk. Gulab and also for intentionally causing evidence of said offence of murder to disappear by throwing his dead body in the well with intention of screening himself from legal punishment for offence under Section302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses including Sk. Usman Mohmad (P. W.1) who was son of deceased Mohmad who lodged first information report (Exh. 9), after having traced dead body of his father floating in the well, Pralhad Keshavrao Nagre (P.W.3) and Tatyarao Keshavrao Nagare (P.W.4) who were the persons admittedly with deceased Mohmad on the date of occurrence i. e. 20-09-1994 while returning from weekly market and who alleged to have seen appellant in the company of deceased Mohmad having quarreled with him, and Dr. Anil Jinturkar (P.W.9) who carried out autopsy on the dead body of Sk. Mohmad and prepared post-mortem report (Exh. 22) giving details of the injuries, external as well as internal as noted on the body and also opined that the injuries were antemortem in nature and that probable cause of death was head injury in form of contusion of brain with subdural haemorrhage. The witness Sk. Usman when left his house to trace his father learnt from witnesses Tatyarao and Pralhad that appellant had quarreled with the deceased. He also found that appellant was hiding himself under a tree in the field of Badsha Bhai and also found dead body of his father in the well. He informed police Patil that dead body of his father was floating in the well. Accordingly, the Police Patil informed by report (Exh. 35) to P. S. I. , police station Chikalthana and on the basis of that report A. D. was registered in respect of death of Sk. Mohmad. During the course of inquiry it was revealed that appellant was last seen with the deceased Sk. Mohmad. He had also quarreled with him and, therefore, Sk. Usman lodged complaint in the police station on the basis of which offence came to be registered against the appellant vide C. R. No. 199 of 1994. After completing investigation charge-sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Aurangabad, who in turn committed the case to the court of Sessions at Aurangabad.

(3.) LET us first consider the evidence of complainant Sk. Usman (P. W.1) who admittedly and naturally also proceeded to trace his father who had not returned to home till evening. It has come in his evidence that when he was about to proceed and when he inquired with one Rauf whether he has seen his father, the latter told him that his father, witness Tatyarao, witness Pralhad and the appellant Phulsing were coming from behind. It is when he proceeded further, witness Tatyarao and Pralhad met them and he found them drunk. When they went towards the field of Badsha Bahi, they saw a 'dhoti' in the field and the appellant sitting hiding under the tree. They also found two shirts, chappals, boots in the field. He stated that white shirt which was found belonging to witness Pralhad and another shirt was of his father Mohmad. He then claimed that all the articles which were found were brought home and he questioned appellant as to where his father was and then appellant in retort remarked if he (Sk. Usman) knew how much his father had insulted him. He further claimed that the appellant forcibly released his hand by giving a jerk and ran away. In his evidence, he has further stated that on the same night appellant came to his house and told that his father had insulted him and he had done what he wanted to do. It was on the next day morning when Sk. Usman left for searching his father, to his surprise dead body of his father was found in the well and, therefore, he informed Police Patil who took them to the police station where he lodged complaint.