ARUN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -original accused No. 1 Arun Jagtap (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'), who is in jail was tried along with accused No. 2 Ratan Jagtap and accused No. 3 Rahul Suradkar in Sessions Case No. 148/2011 before the Sessions Judge, Jalna for offence under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). Only the appellant came to be convicted and only under Section 307 of IPC and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The Sessions Court directed that, on depositing of fine by the accused or after recovering it, the same be paid to the victim Gangadhar Limbaji Pagare (P.W. 2) as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short). Thus, this appeal.

(2.) THE case of prosecution in short is as follows: -

(3.) THE appellant -accused came to be convicted as above. The present appeal raises grounds and it has been argued for the appellant -accused that the witnesses examined were interested witnesses. Incident took place in public place, but still no independent witness was examined. The medical evidence, the evidence of doctor Jamal Azmi shows two injuries on the parieto temporal region while the evidence of Dr. Dilip Patil (P.W. 10) speaks only about one injury on the occipital area. The blood on the iron rod was not proved to be of the victim. The seizure panchanama of the rod is not duly proved as panchas did not support. There are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. The incident is that only one blow was given and so it could not be said that there was intention to commit murder. The reasonings adopted by the trial Court are not maintainable. The accused is entitled to be acquitted. There was delay in filing of F.I.R.