PRALHAD Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.1.2007 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge - 3, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 149/2005 by which the appellant Pralhad was convicted along with accused No. 2 - Narendra and accused No. 3 - Nagendra both his sons for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(2.) ON 16.08.2005 the complainant Namdeo Dau Raipure r/o Borgaon was doing agricultural work with his son -in -law deceased Vinay Satyawan Nimsarkar of village Dewada Tq. Pombhurna, District Chandrapur. On the next date i.e. 17.8.2005 he accompanied his son -in -law to the field for sowing operation along with labourers taken on hire. They were working in the field and both the complainant Namdeo and his son -in -law were standing on the 'Bund' of the field. At about 10:00 a.m. the appellant Pralhad his sons Nagendra and Narendra arrived there with axe and sticks, Pralhad having axe and his sons having sticks and they asked deceased Vinay as to why he was ploughing their land and they started beating him by stick while Pralhad started assaulting him with axe and delivered several blows of axe on his person. Complainant Namdeo tried to intervene but he was also assaulted and suffered injuries to right and left hand and left leg. The farm -labourers Kisan and Moreshwar working left the place after the incident was over. Vinay fell down and received injuries and became unconscious. All the accused persons including the appellant ran away with their weapons. Thereafter, complainant Namdeo went to the house of deceased Vinay and reported the incident and lodged report to Police Station Pombhurna, where offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered vide Crime No. 28/2005. Complainant being injured was referred to the hospital. Thereafter, the investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer completed usual formalities, recorded statements of the eyewitnesses and others and they filed the charge -sheet. The trial was held. The trial Court relied on the three eyewitnesses to the incident and thereafter recorded the order of conviction and sentence.

(3.) THE next submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that all the witnesses examined and relied upon by the trial Court as eyewitnesses are interested witnesses. P.W.1 - Namdeo Raipure is the father -in -law who is highly interested witness and other two prosecution witnesses who had relied by the trial Judge were admittedly engaged on a very high rate of wages and therefore, they were interested in repaying their Master by deposing in the Court as eyewitnesses when they were not eyewitnesses and actually had run away from the spot before the incident took place. He, therefore, submitted that the prosecution case has not been proved and the appellant was required to be acquitted. In the alternative, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that sons of the appellant accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted by this Court by holding them not guilty of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by modifying the conviction under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the appellant Pralhad is also required to be given same treatment he having spent several years in jail and is aged about 65 years.