BHIMSING KHETEYA WASAVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 16.11.2002, passed by learned First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada in Sessions Case No. 137 of 1998, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. Brief facts of the prosecution can be stated as follows:--

(2.) During the course of investigation spot panchanama came to be drawn and the bloodstained shirt of the injured came to be seized. The appellant came to be arrested on 01.06.1997. The injured, namely, Hira Pawara, who was referred for better treatment to Civil Hospital, Dhule, succumbed to his injury. On the death of the injured, inquest panchanama was prepared and autopsy was carried out at Civil Hospital, Dhule. Due to death of injured as above, offence came to be altered to section 302 of Indian Penal Code, in the crime which was registered earlier. During further course of investigation, clothes of the deceased having bloodstains came to be recovered and on recording statements of witnesses, muddemal articles which were seized, were forwarded for its analysis to Chemical Analyzer. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Taloda. In the course of time, the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions for Trial. The charge is framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial. Learned Trial Judge, considering the evidence, found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. Co-accused Joga @ Jangalsing came to be acquitted of all the charges. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for respondent/State. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for both the sides, with their assistance I have scrutinized the evidence on record. Admittedly, case of prosecution is based on the ocular version of the complainant as well as P.W. 4-Jinga and P.W. 6-Janglya, who were present on the spot at the time of incident. I, therefore, find it material to first consider evidence of eye witnesses.