LAWS(BOM)-2014-5-111

YASHWANT HIRAMAN THAKARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On May 08, 2014
Yashwant Hiraman Thakare Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, preferred by the appellant - original accused - Yashwant Hiraman Thakare, exception is taken to the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge - 3, Nashik, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default thereof, the appellant is to suffer further R.I. for three months. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under : -

(2.) CHARGE came to be framed against the appellant under section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication, After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier in paragraph 1 above. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution is based mainly on (i) the testimony of two eye -witnesses i.e. PW -1 - Pandit and PW -7 - Keda; (ii) the recovery of the iron pipe and the blood -stained shirt of the appellant, at his instance; and (iii) the medical and forensic evidence in this case. PW -1 - Pandit has deposed that the deceased - Kantilal was his son and that he knew the appellant who was residing near his house. PW -1 - Pandit has further stated that on the day of the incident, the villagers had slaughtered a goat in the evening and its meat was distributed amongst the villagers. After taking their meal, a fire place was ignited in the court yard. One Balu Parasharam Jagtap, PW -7 - Keda, Pakhibai Pandurang Thakare, and his daughter, along with 2 - 3 other persons were sitting around the fire, taking warmth from it. They were talking about purchasing a VCD player for watching a movie. The Appellant was also taking part in the aforesaid discussion. At that time, the deceased - Kantilal was also sitting near the fire place. During this discussion, a heated exchange of words took place between the appellant and the deceased - Kantilal due to the fact that the deceased - Kantilal told the appellant that he should not take part in the VCD programme. In view of this, the Appellant slapped the deceased - Kantilal. PW -1 - Pandit has further deposed that thereafter the appellant went to his house, brought an iron pipe and assaulted the deceased - Kantilal on his head by means of the said pipe. Due to this assault, the deceased - Kantilal fell down and had sustained serious injuries to his head. Since blood started oozing from the injuries, they covered his head by means of a cloth. Thereafter, they lifted him and put him in a bullock -cart to take him to Abhona. The lady doctor present in the Rural Hospital at Abhona told PW 1 - Pandit and others that this was a serious case and therefore, the deceased - Kantilal should be shifted to Nashik Hospital immediately. In view thereof, the deceased was shifted to Nashik Civil Hospital where he was admitted and treatment was being provided to him. However, on the next date i.e. 27th November 2004 the deceased - Kantilal expired at about 12.00 p.m. He has further deposed that after the postmortem was performed on the dead body of the deceased - Kantilal, it was brought by him and others to their village Amburdi where the funeral rites were performed at about 8.00 p.m. PW 1 - Pandit has further deposed that thereafter he went to Abhona Police Station and narrated the incident to the Police. His complaint was reduced into writing by the Police and his thumb impression was obtained. During his deposition, PW -1 - Pandit has identified the said complaint (Exh. 12) and stated that its contents are correct. He has further stated that since he was alone in the family and the deceased - Kantilal was his only son, he could not lodge the complaint earlier. During the course of his deposition, PW 1 - Pandit has identified the iron pipe (Art. 5) as well as the shirt and the pant (Arts. 6 and 7) that were worn by the appellant. There is nothing that is elicited in the cross -examination of PW -1 - Pandit to discredit his testimony. We find his testimony to be truthful and cogent. We therefore have no hesitation in relying upon the same.