KAILAS HANUMANT NALAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard rival arguments at length on this appeal preferred by the appellant / original accused No.1 challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Section 304 (Part II) and 324 of IPC. By the said impugned judgment and order, original accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 were acquitted of both the charges. The present appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and one year for the respective offences for which he was convicted. The judgment and order of conviction was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 31.1.2015.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that in the evening of 18.1.2010 PW1 complainant had been to the house of his friend one Arun Shingane (PW3). That time, said Arun Shingane was not at home but his wife was present. That time, said PW1 had occasion to see one Balasaheb Nalawade (accused No.4) and there was some altercation and hot exchange of words between them. Apparently, some threats were given by said accused No.4 to PW1 complainant. Thereafter the complainant came back to his home and while taking dinner, he narrated the incident of such altercation and threat, to his son (PW2). That time his cousin brother one Sandip Sabale was also present in the house. Said Sandip Sabale is the victim who subsequently died in the incident which took place on that night. After the meals and after the discussion it was decided by PW1, his son and said Sandip Sabale to go to the house of Arun Shingane (PW3). It was also decided to reprimand said Balasaheb Nalawade for his conduct on that evening of abusing and giving threats to PW1. As such, they went to the house of Arun Shingane at about 10:30 p.m. or so. On reaching the house, they met Arun Shingane and thereafter they came in front of the house of Arun Shingane on the road. The house of said Balasaheb Nalawade was situated in front of the house of Arun Shingane beyond the road. PW1 called Balasaheb Nalawade outside his house and in fact there was again some altercation and hot exchange of words. By that time, other coaccused also came there including the present appellant / original accused No.1 Kailas Nalawade who is son of said Balasaheb Nalawade. All the four accused started assaulting PW1, PW2 and PW3.

(3.) In the midst of the fight present appellant went back to his house and brought one knife. According to prosecution said knife is Article 'A' before the Court. Said knife is having blade length of 5 inches and handle length of about 5 inches. Admittedly said knife produced before the Court as Article 'A' is having sharpedge at one side and blunt on the other. This aspect is of much significance as argued by learned Counsel for the appellant for canvassing the argument that definitely this knife must not have been used for the assault on PW2 and also assault on PW3, mainly considering that the injuries received by them were cleancut injuries and not having any blunt edge margin for one side.