MAROTI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant along with other accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 r/w Section 149 and 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused have been acquitted of all the charges. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant had allegedly caused injury to Devrao Shinde on his chest during the course of alleged incident. The injury resulted in death of Devrao Shinde. The house of the appellant and house of the deceased are in the same area and there is a open space in between two houses. It appears that there was a dispute over the said open space. It is alleged that the incident had occurred on 26-3-1995 at 7-00 a.m. The deceased was cleaning the said open space for construction of a wall. The appellant and other accused took objection and started abusing the deceased and his sons. The appellant and other accused were armed with a sickle, a stick, a spade and an axe. They assaulted the deceased and his sons. It is stated that the appellant had inflicted a blow by means of a sickle on chest of the deceased.

(2.) The learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that it was proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts that blow on chest of the deceased was caused by the appellant. Unlawful assembly and common object could not be proved. Therefore, other accused were acquitted. The learned trial Court has also come to the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased or to cause bodily injury on the chest. Therefore, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Though the learned trial court has not specifically stated in the judgment, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code clearly indicates the view of the trial Court. That the appellant knew that the injury intended to be caused by him was likely to cause death of the deceased.

(3.) I have gone through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are sons of the deceased. I have heard learned Counsel Shri A.K. Choube for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.K. Bangadkar for the respondent/State. The learned Counsel Shri A.K. Choube has submitted that there are major omissions in the evidence of all three witnesses. None of the witnesses had specifically stated in their previous statements before the police that the appellant had inflicted a blow by means of sickle on chest of the deceased. These omissions are proved by the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.7. The learned trial Court, however, took the view that these are not material omissions inasmuch as the witnesses have stated that the appellant had inflicted a blow by means of a sickle.