BHAUSAHEB SAHADU JAKHERE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the rival submissions at length on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant sole accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2008 dated 5th April, 2010.

(2.) The present appellant-accused was convicted by the Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik for the offence punishable under Section 302 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months. The appellant-accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days. Both substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the same judgment and order, the appellant-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. It is a factual position that since the date of arrest i.e. on the date of the incident itself i.e. from the 2nd October, 2007, the appellant-accused was in custody till the Sessions Case No. 16 of 2008 was concluded. Thereafter also till date, the appellantaccused is in custody. He has been represented by appointed advocate Ms. Sarojini Upadhyay.

(3.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell, is as under: Infact, the circumstances in the present matter are very peculiar and the present appellant-accused is the real son of the victim. Infact, the appellant-accused also assaulted his mother on the night of the incident of 2nd October, 2007. Victim had agricultural land in his name and he has two sons including the present appellant-accused being elder son and P.W. No. 2 one Shivaji being the younger son. Shivaji along with his family was residing though in the same village, at some distance but appellant-accused along with his family was residing in the same house which was built in the agricultural land and was jointly sharing along with his parents. According to the case of the prosecution apparently there was a quarrel between the appellant-accused and his father the victim on account of demand of share by the appellant-accused in the ancestral agricultural property which was in the name of the victim.