LALASAHEB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicts for offence under Ss. 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC in Sessions Case No. 36/2003, hereby question the legality and maintainability of the judgment dtd. 13/2/2006 passed by learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad.

(2.) PW2 Subhash visited shop of Mahadev Shivappa for purchase of betel nut. PW2 also asked appellant Lalasaheb whether he too wanted betel nut. After denying, it is alleged that, Lalasaheb said that he is not a beggar to accept whatever is offered by others. Such reply triggered heated exchange of words between both of them. Consequently, Lalasaheb took out his footwear and flung it in the direction of informant. By indulgence of others, matter was sorted out and settled. In the evening, after dinner, when informant went to Khandoba temple to watch play, Lala, Sarang, Indrajit and Pandurang also came to watch the play. Lala informed previous incident to his associates and thereafter, it is alleged that, they all four gave kicks and fist blows to informant. Again this matter was separated by Nilkant and Bhalchandra. When informant was returning home after watching the play, it is alleged that appellants assaulted him. Sarang dealt knife blow, but the blow landed on the abdomen of Nilkant PW1, who had come to separate. Appellant Lala dealt knife blow on informant. Vikram Watane and Bhalchandra took the injured to the hospital. On the statement of PW1 Nilkant, crime was registered, which was investigated by PW10 and he chargesheeted appellants.

(3.) Learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad conducted the trial, during which prosecution adduced evidence of 10 witnesses and relied on documentary evidence like FIR, panchanama, injury certificates etc. After appreciating the evidence adduced by prosecution, learned trial Judge convicted appellants for offence under Ss. 324 and 326 of IPC, however acquitted all of them of the charge under Sec. 504 r/w 34 of IPC . Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment, appellants have assailed the same, raising various grounds in the appeal.