KISAN BHANUDAS KUMBHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the order dated 9-11-1987, passed by the IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 289 of 1986, convicting and sentencing him to undergo five R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and 6 month R. I. in default, under section 304 Part II I. P. C. , has come up in appeal before me. Along with the appellant, six other persons namely (1) Bhanudas Sopan Kumbhar (2) Vishwanath Sopan Kumbhar (3) Machindra Narhari Kumbhar (4) Prakhakar Vishwanath Kumbhar (5) Uttam Duryodhan Kumbhar and (6) Vasant Machindra Kumbhar were tried but, they have been acquitted by the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as under : the informant Batu alias Krishna Laxman Kumbhar P. W. 4 was the brother-in-law of the deceased Murlidhar Kumbhar. The latter was the brother of hte wife of the informant and used to reside with the informant. In the land of the deceased, there was a well situate at a distance of about 200 feet from the informants house. That well was jointly shared by the deceased, co-accused Bhanudas (father of the appellant) and some others. On 8-5-1986, at about 4. 00 p. m. when the deceased Murlidhar and his servant Navnath were at the well, the appellant along with his father Bhanudas Sopan Kumbhar, Vishwanath Sopan Kumbhar, Machindra Narhari Kumbhar and Prabhakar Vishwanath Kumbhar came and a quarrel between them and Murlidhar is said to have ensued. On hearing shouts, the informant went running to the well and saw that appellant was assaulting Murlidhar with a jambiya (big-knife) on his neck and Bhanudas was assaulting him with a stick on the back. It is alleged that on receiving the stick blow on the back, he fell down. It is further alleged that thereafter, appellant and six co-accused persons ran away. After the incident the informant and Navnath carried Murlidhar to a place beneath a tree. It is alleged that Gangubai P. W. 6 Duryodhan Chavan, P. W. 7 and some others also reached there and Murlidhar is said to have given a oral dying declaration in their presence. It is also stated that Bajrang and Mahadeo took Murlidhar on their motors-cycle to Pandharpur dispensary but, on the way Murlidhar died.

(3.) IT is alleged that the same day (8-5-1986) at 7 p. m. the informant dictated his F. I. R. Exh. 30. On the basis of the F. I. R. , a case under section 302 I. P. C. was registered against the appellant and others.