VILAS NAGESH JADHAV Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/Original Accused No. 1 - Vilas, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ -, in default of which to undergo RI for one year, RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default of which to undergo RI for six months and RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - in default of which to undergo RI for two months, with a direction that the appellant would be entitled for set off, by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, by judgment dated 13/10/1992, in Sessions Case No. 126 of 1989, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. During the pendency of this appeal, Original Accused No. 2 - Nagesh expired and consequently the appeal filed by him was dismissed as abated. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may be stated thus: -

(2.) ON committal of the case to Court of Sessions, trial court, vide Exh. 4 framed charge against six accused for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 307 read with Section 149 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 15 witnesses, while the accused in their defence examined accused No. 3 - Balasaheb. The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant and Original Accused No. 2, while acquitting the other accused. The appellant being thus aggrieved by his conviction and sentence has filed the present appeal.

(3.) IN cross -examination, he has admitted that a criminal case had been filed by the Vaduj Police Station on the report of Nagesh that Ganpat and others had damaged the pipe line of accused Nagesh. Omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his report that the appellant had threatened PW 4 - Ganpat and his family members. He has further admitted that when he had come to clean his hands after his dinner, he was standing at the threshold and at that time the appellant was in the courtyard of the house holding a knife in his right hand. He has admitted that his brother deceased Eknath had held the appellant. Ganpat has volunteered that immediately thereafter the appellant stabbed Eknath with a knife. He has denied the suggestion that he along with his other family members had abused and threatened accused Nagesh and his sons because they were annoyed by the action taken by accused Nagesh against Ganpat and his family members. He has denied the suggestion that in the scuffle PW 4 - Ganpat as well as Eknath had sustained the injuries. Certain minor omissions have been elicited that he had not stated in his report that he was cleaning his hands by standing at the threshold and that the appellant had suddenly come with a knife.