ANKUSH Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 6th March, 2012 passed by learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, by which the appellant, Ankush Ashok Ramteke, was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000-00, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-accused. Chhannulal Mane lodged First Information Report with Police Station, Gondia, on 17th January, 2009, that his daughter Sandhya studying in XIIth Standard was to have an engagement ceremony. On 17th January, 2009, he received the information that Sandhya was assaulted. He, therefore, rushed to the spot and found her injured and was being taken to hospital. Appellant Ankush Ramteke was having one side love affair and he, therefore, assaulted her with a sharp weapon with an intention to commit her murder. In the assault, Sandhya lost her right hand finger and three fingers of left hand besides other head injuries. Police investigated the crime and filed a charge-sheet. Prosecution examined its witnesses and finally the Trial Court, after hearing, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for Life having found that the incidents of assault of the nature due to one side love affair were on rise and for no reason Sandhya was disfigured. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal, vehemently argued that the Trial Court committed a serious error in convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, when the medical evidence as well as the other evidence clearly lacked the basic requirement that it should be proved by the prosecution that in ordinary course the injuries could have caused death of Sandhya. According to him, neither the Medical Officer, nor any other witness deposed to that effect and, in fact, the injuries being on hands and head without much damage, no offence under Section 307 was at all proved, for which the appellant was convicted. Mr. Daga then contended that at any rate the evidence of the victim as well as other witnesses examined by the prosecution could not be believed and was required to be rejected, since the prosecution evidence was infirm and untrustworthy. In the alternative, Mr. Daga submitted that the appellant has already undergone about five years of sentence and he should be allowed to be released on completion of the sentence undergone looking to the young age of the appellant.

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that the charge under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, was fully proved, since the appellant had an intention to finish off the victim Sandhya and that is why, he inflicted as many as thirty-two injuries on her person with a lethal weapon like knife. The injuries are on all parts of the body which clearly depicts that he had a definite intention to cause her death. He then submitted that the offences like the one, namely assault due to failure of one side love affair are on the rise, but still the society is not taking a lesson and, therefore, the sentence of Life Imprisonment imposed on the appellant cannot be said to be on the higher side.