BHAUSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAUSINGH 5/0 Damadu Chavan original accused No. 1 - A-11 and Madhukar s/c Damadu Chavan original accused No. 2 A-21 have taken exception to the conviction and sentence passed by the lind Addi. Sessions Judge, Amravati on 10. 10. 1994, in Sessions Trial No. 46/1989, convicting both the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing both of them to suffer RI. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R. I. for 3 months.

(2.) MR. M. R Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellants/accused has mainly argued that the deceased Hansa Raja Chavan has not met homicidal death and, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court to the accused/appellants, was not justified. The learned Counsel for the accused/ appellants has also urged that P. W. 3 Rani s/o Raja Chavan and P. W. l 6 Smt. Indu w/o Hansa Chavan, who, according to the prosecution case, are the eye witnesses, are not reliable because they were not occurrence witnesses and they gave exaggerated the incident in their depositions. Mr. Daga, thus, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

(3.) MR. Agrawal, the Addi. Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that it would be difficult for him to defend the finding before this Court that the deceased Hansa Raja Chavan met with homicidal death. The Addi. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the medical evidence led by the prosecution does not support the case (if homicidal death and, therefore, to that extent the judgment of the Trial Court cannot be sustained. Mr. Agrawal, the learned Addi. Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the accused/appellants, on the facts found and evidence led by the prosecution, can safely be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.