STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SIDDHARTHA GANPAT DAMODARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals take exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 47/2009. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under: That on 6.1.2009 at around 8:30 p.m. accused No. 1 with iron rod and accused No. 2 with an axe assaulted Ganesh, the brother of P.W. 1 Shrikant since the accused were suspecting of illicit relationship between deceased and wife of accused No. 2 Siddharth. The accused assaulted the deceased Ganesh and his servant P.W. 2 Pundlik. Deceased Ganesh died as a result of the said assault and Pundlik sustained serious injuries. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be lodged on the basis of the complaint of P.W. 1 Shrikant. Investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. Statements of witnesses were recorded and an axe was seized vide memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act from accused No. 2 and on conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Court of J.M.F.C. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and two years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and 3 months respectively. Insofar as accused No. 2 is concerned, he was acquitted of the charge.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has approached this Court. The State has approached being aggrieved by the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and not convicted accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Advocate Shri Mahesh Rai appearing on behalf of accused No. 1 submits that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He submits that the incident occurred upon sudden and grave provocation and therefore, sentence under Section 302 is not sustained. Insofar as accused No. 2 is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that the trial Judge is right in not convicting the accused as there was no evidence against the said accused.