STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRABHU BARKU GADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both these matters arise out of the same set of facts, we propose disposing them of by a common judgment.

(2.) VIDE Judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1994, the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 142 of 1993, sentenced the appellant. under section 302 I. P. C. to death for committing the murders of Smt. Mirabai Govind Clade and Baburao Dhondiba Gade. The order convicting the appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code was passed by him on 30th April, 1994. It is this conviction and sentence which has been challenged in the present appeal. Clubbed along with this appeal is Confirmation Case NO. 1 of 1994, which arises out of the reference made by the learned Trial Judge, under section 366 of Criminal Procedure Code, for confirmation, of the death sentence of the appellant.

(3.) THE prosecution case in brief, is that the appellant Prabhu Barku Gade is the first cousin of the informant Govind Baburao Gade, who was the husband of Smt. Mirabai Govind Gade, one of the two deceased persons in the instant case; other being Baburao Dhondiba Gade, the father of the informant and the real uncle of the appellant. Both the informant and the appellant are said to be residents of the same village. Asred Budruk. The house of the appellant is said to be situated at a very short distance from that of the informant. It is said that the informant used to reside in his farm house known as Padal in land Gat No. 183 and his father, the deceased Baburao, used to stay at night at a Padal in Gat No. 181 in the same village; the distance between the two Padals being about one to one and a half furlongs. According to the prosecution at about 7. 30 p. m. on 2nd November, 1992 the informant, his father Baburao Dhondiba Gade, Chandrakant Sabaji Gade P. W. 5. Vithoba Gangaram Walke, P. W. 6 and some others were sitting outside the Padal situate in land Gat No. 183 (Padal of the informant) and were talking amongst themselves. At that time, the appellant came there and questioned Baburao Gade as to why he had cut grass from his field. It is said that Baburao tried to pacify the appellant and told him that he had not cut the grass from his field. However, the appellant was not satisfied and kept on abusing Baburao. He is also alleged to have caught hold of him. However, P. W. 5 Chandrakant Sabaji Gade and one Chindu, not examined; took the appellant to his house. Before leaving, the appellant is said to have threatened Baburao to the effect that he would see him that very day.