AMAR AMARENDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal at the instance of the appellant/accused who has been convicted for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Originally, the accused was tried for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he, on 3. 1. 1986 at about 6. 00 p. m. , had committed murder of one Rama Sadashio Bargate in the Gandhinagar Square, Nagpur.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the deceased Rama Sadashio Bargate worked as a truck driver, while appellant/accused was an auto-rickshaw driver. On 3. 1. 1986, at about 1. 00 or 1. 30 p. m. , there was reportedly an altercation between the accused and the deceased and, therefore, the deceased had told his friend, one Sanjay Nagrale about the altercation. At about 6. 00 p. m. , on the same day, the deceased met the complainant Sanjay Nagrale at Ambazari and deceased wanted to settle the matter with the accused. The two some, theref6te, went and were standing at the spot of incident, i. e. , a square in Gandhinagar in front of Lady Amritabai Daga College. The two some were standing at a Pan-shop when, on seeing the accused, there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that in that altercation, the accused whipped out a knife and dealt a blow with it on the right side chest of the deceased. The complainant Sanjay ran after the accused, but the accused made good his escape. Then, the deceased was put in a rickshaw by the complainant Sanjay and was taken to Ambazari Police Station, where a report was lodged at Exhibit 37. The police, after registering an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, started investigation; but immediately learnt on the same day that the deceased had died and, therefore, the offence was converted into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused came to be arrested on the same day. It was found that he also had sustained some injuries on his person. He was sent for medical examination. Usual investigation followed, including the seizure of the blood-stained clothes, blood-stained earth and also the seizure of a pair of chappals lying on the place of offence. During the investigation, the accused discovered his blood-stained clothes as also the knife which he had allegedly hidden under the mango-tree. On this basis, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused and the matter was committed to Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IN support of the prosecution, two eyewitnesses came to be examined, they being P. W. 1 Sanjay and P. W. 2-Deepak. The other witnesses, included the police witnesses and the Doctors as also the panchas to prove the discoveries. The accused took a peculiar defence. He claimed that as a matter of fact there was undoubtedly a fight between him and the deceased in which the deceased had injured him and had held him from the back side and in order to save himself, head dealt one blow with knife on the person of the deceased Rama. The accused claimed that when he had gone to the Pan-shop, P. W. 1-Sanjay and the deceased were already there and, in fact, in order to save his own life, he had dealt a knife blow on deceased Rama.