AMRUTA GUNDA SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMRUTA Gunda Shinde, accused-appellant, was charged for intentionally causing the death of Dattatraya Jadhav and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and thereafter attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself by means of a broken bottle and also dashing his head against one stonary substance and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 309 of Indian Penal Code. The charges having been proved he was convicted for clue offences under Sections 302 and 309 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur by judgement and order dated March 11, 1993. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story lies in a narrow compass. PW-8, Laxman Narasu Koli was working as Police Patil of village Takawada. On October 19, 1991 in between 6. 30 and 6. 15 p. m. he received information through Tanji Shinde, brother of the accused, that the accused has murdered Shivaji Shinde. On receiving the information he left for the place of occurrence. On the way Ganpa Jadhav informed him that Dattatraya Jadhav was murdered. On the spot he noticed a crowd. The accused was besmeared with blood and was holding an iron bar in his hand. He could not go close to the place of incident in view of the situation at that time. He went to Ichalkaranji Police Station and informed the Police about the incident. The police came to the spot. PW-10, P. S. I. Dattatraya Sonawane, left for the place of occurrence immediately. PW-1, Minabai Jadhav, lodged a report at Shirol Police Station. She stated therein that early in the morning after taking bath and tea she and her husband, since deceased, had gone to the cattle-shed to remove the cow-dung. When she was collecting the cow-dung her husband had gone to collect grass. At that time their neighbour the accused called her husband for chewing tobacco. Her husband went towards him. She heard that her husband and the accused were quarrelling and her husband raised a cry melo melo. She noticed that the accused has assaulted her husband on his head with iron bar. She tried to intervene but was threatened by the accused that if she intervened she would be killed. The complaint was proved by her at the trial and it was marked Exhibit-23. PW-10 Investigating Officer reached the spot. He drew inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and also recorded the statement of witnesses. The accused was arrested on October 31, 1991. He sent the seized articles to the Chemical Analyser. After completion of the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet on November 30, 1991 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaysingpur who committed the case to the Court of Session at Kolhapur. The accused took a plea of insanity in his defence. The learned trial Judge relying upon the ocular evidence of eye witnesses and the circumstantial evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

(3.) PW-1 is the wife of the deceased. She was present in the house when the occurrence took place. She stated that on the date of the occurrence she had gone to the cattle-shed and her husband also came there. The accused came there and offered tobacco to her husband. The accused and her husband were at a distance of 2 to 3 feet from her. After offering tobacco the accused gave blows on the head of her husband with iron bar. The iron bar was 11/2 feet in length. She identified the weapon of offence at the trial. She raised hue and cry and her in-laws also came to the spot. In the cross-examination, only one question was put to her and that is with regard to the location of the house of the accused. She stated that the house of the accused is in front of their house. PW-2, Raghunath Huparikar, is running a bakery shop in the village. He corroborated the evidence of PW-1 in material particulars except that he stated that the accident took place in front of the shop of the witness. Unfortunately it was not explained that a room in the house of the deceased is used as a shop. In cross-examination it was suggested to him that on the date of the incident the accused was dancing in the morning by keeping a dog on his head. PW-3, Babasaheb Godhade witnessed the offence and stated that accused gave two blows with iron bar on the head of the deceased. His evidence so far it relates to the assault on the deceased was not challenged in cross-examination. The suggestion put to him was that the witness might not have been able to see the assault. PW-4, Datta Kamble stated that on the date of the incident he was going from his house to his field crossing the shop of the accused. In his presence the accused gave tobacco and lime to the deceased. When the deceased was going away the accused attacked him with iron bar and gave blows on the back side and on the head of the accused. He was not cross-examined. PW-5, Balasaheb Pawar corroborated the evidence of PW-1 and gave particulars and also stated that the family members of the deceased had arrived at the spot. PW-6, Ramchandra Kale, stated that he had not seen the occurrence but he admitted that he had seen iron bar in the hands of the accused while he was dancing. In the cross-examination he stated that prior to the incident he got the brother of the accused admitted in the hospital. PW-7, Sakhubai Dhangar, stated that she heard shouts coming out of the house and she saw the accused holding iron bars in his hands and the deceased was dead. She also noticed that the accused had an injury on the stomach and was dancing with a broken bottle. PW-8, Laxman Koli is the Police Patil who gave information to the police PW-9, Abdul Pirjade, Head Constable attached to Vadgaon Police Station recorded the first information report on the basis of the statement of PW-1. PW-10 is the Investigating Officer. The post-mortem notes were produced at Exhibit-32 by the Public Prosecutor. The authenticity was admitted by the accused. The post-mortem note indicates that the doctor who performed the autopsy noticed the following head injuries on the person of the deceased.