MADHUKAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 takes exception to the conviction of the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian penal Code (herein after referred to as the Code for short) by judgment dated 22 -3 -2010. The case of the prosecution as can be gathered from the material on record is that one Punjabrao was cultivating the field of one Pankajseth. A portion of said field was fallow land where said Punjabrao used to graze his cattle. According to the prosecution, the appellant - Madhukar used to cultivate the land of one Singhania which was opposite to the land of Pankajseth. On 6 -8 -2008, at about 5.30 p.m., Punjabrao had been to the said field followed by one Nathu who was doing labour work with him. A quarrel broke out between Panjabrao and the appellant on the issue of grazing cattle. Punjabrao had obstructed the appellant from grazing his cattle in the fallow land that was under his cultivation. In the course of quarrel, the appellant went to his cattle shed and returned with his two bulls and an axe. Despite objection of Punjabrao, the appellant put his bulls for grazing in the fallow part of the land. As Punjabrao opposed the same, the appellant assaulted Panjabrao with an axe on the head, as a result of which, Punjabrao suffered serious head injury. Nathu attempted to snatch the axe from the appellant, but the appellant left the spot for his cattle shed. Nathu reported the incident to the wife of Punjabrao who along with her sons rushed to the agricultural field. Punjabrao was taken for medical aid while Nathu lodged report with the Police Station. The police authorities completed necessary formalities and thereafter, arrested the appellant and also seized the axe. The appellant was charge -sheeted under Sec. 302 of the Code. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to said Court. The appellant pleaded not to be guilty and hence was tried. On completion of the trial, the appellant was held guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) Ms. Richa Inamdar, the learned Counsel appointed to represent the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been wrongly convicted under Sec. 302 of the Code. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. The judgment under challenge is based on pre -preponderance of probabilities and there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt to implicate and convict the appellant for the offence in question. The learned Counsel further submitted that there were various vital discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses and hence, the appellant was entitled to be acquitted. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was submitted that the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 302 of the Code was incorrect considering the circumstances in which the incident took place.

(3.) Shri V.A. Thakre, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the judgment under challenge requires no interference. It was submitted that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record had been rightly appreciated by the learned Sessions Court and the punishment as imposed after convicting the appellant was legal and proper. It was further submitted that the axe used for committing the offence had been duly seized at the behest of the appellant. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.