GULDASGALMA HATWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal by the second accused in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1987 of the Sessions Court, bhandara, challenges the conviction of the second accused under S. 302 and under S. 325 of indian Penal Code; and the sentences of imprisonment for life under S. 302 and and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months under S. 325 of IPC.

(2.) SIX accused persons were charged for various offences. Accused 1 to 6 were charged under S. 302 read with S. 34 of IPC; 3rd accused was charged again under S. 323 of IPC for having caused hurt to P. W. 5; and again 2nd accused was charged under S. 325 of IPC for having caused injury by means of an axe to P. W. 4 Drakshabai, Pending trial, the accused No. 1 expired. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused No. 3 to 6 and as indicated above, found the 2nd accused guilty of the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 323 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above.

(3.) THE whole dispute arose with respect to 2. 71 acres of land comprised in Gat No. 39 of village nilagondi. Baburao Maniram Bhalai, the deceased in this case, was a tribal. The aforesaid property belonged to him. He had sold the property to accused No. 2 and 3. As per the provisions of The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, the concerned authority passed an order directing restoration of the said property to the aforesaid Baburao. As per the orders of the Tahsildar, Murlidhar (P. W. 3) delivered the property from 2nd and 3rd accused to baburao Maniram Bhalai on 17-1-1986. Ex. 72 is the possession receipt. Ex. 73 is the panchanama. It is the case of prosecution that after the delivery of the aforesaid property baburao was in cultivation and possession of land. While so, on 16-6-1987, at about 9-00 a. m. when Drakshabai (P. W. 4), the daughter of deceased Baburao, along with her minor daughter devaka was engaged in uprooting the Tur stems accused No. 1 and 2 along with others came for ploughing the aforesaid land with two ploughs. As usual when Baburao went to the field, noticing the accused engaged as above, returned to his house and came back along with his son parashram (P. W. 5 ). Further case of prosecution is that Baburao obstructed the ploughing and the 1st accused, who was in charge of one of the ploughs, dealt a blow with spade on the head of baburao and 2nd accused who has having an axe dealt a blow on his chest. When P. W. 5 tried to interfere he was obstructed by other accused; and P. W. 4 prevented the accused persons from further attacking Baburao who fell on receipt of the blows by accused No. 1 and 2. P. W. 5 the son on seeing that his father fell on account of attack by the accused left towards the village to fetch others. In the meanwhile P. W. 4 with the help of her daughter made Baburao to sit. The prosecution alleges that noticing Baburao is not dead, the 2nd accused reached there and again dealt a blow with an axe on the head of Baburao, receiving which he instantaneously fell and collapsed.