SIKANDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. Daga for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Bangadkar for the respondent State. The appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. At the conclusion of trial, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The incident in question had occurred at the bus stand of village Junona, within the jurisdiction of Ballarshah Police Station. The appellant was holding a gun and was accompanied by his wife at the time of incident. The deceased was an auto-rickshaw driver. He had come to Junona bus stand with some passengers. The passengers alighted from the auto-rickshaw and they were in process of paying fare to the deceased Raju. The appellant wanted the deceased to take him to Chandrapur in Auto Rickshaw. The deceased refused to oblige the appellant. There was quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. During the course of quarrel, there was a scuffle also. In the said scuffle, the appellant has alleged to have fired a shot from bharmar gun which proved to be fatal and caused death of the deceased. The brother of the deceased reached the spot immediately and took him to Civil Hospital, Chandrapur. The deceased was declared dead at Civil Hospital.

(3.) The First Information Report was registered on the complaint made by the brother of the deceased for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, statements of eye-witnesses were recorded and the spot panchnama was drawn. The gun was seized by the Police. The gun was examined by the Chemical Analyzer of Forensic Science Laboratory at Mumbai. It was stated by the Chemical Analyzer that the gun was a single barrel muzzle loading gun and was in working condition. Residues of fired gun powder was detected in the barrel washings of the gun. The Chemical Analyzer, therefore, concluded that the gun was used for firing before it was received in the laboratory. Few percussion caps from the laboratory stock and two percussion caps received by the laboratory from the Police were successfully test fired from the gun. As such, the gun was in working condition. The shirt of the deceased was also examined and it was opined that metallic lead in presence of blackening was found around the periphery of encircled shot-hole on the shirt. Fired gun powder residues were also found around the shot-hole. The Chemical Analyzer was of the opinion that the lead projectiles must have been fired from the close range of the muzzle loading gun. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.