MOTILAL CHOUTHIPRASAD VARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2000 passed in Sessions Case No. 353 of 1999, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, the appellant named above has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before us during the course of the arguments.

(2.) We have, with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, scrutinised the entire record and re-appreciated the evidence.

(3.) The case of the prosecution, as is disclosed on such re appreciation, stated briefly, is that deceased Alok Narayanrao Kirdak, is the husband of Parinita Alok Kirdak who is examined as P. W. 2. The deceased had a motor garage at Somatana Phata on Bombay-Pune Road. He had one Balu Ramkisan Disle as a Helper working with him. He has examined him as P. W. 4. Ashish Gamson Dethe (P. W. 5) was also working with the deceased as a Painter. The accused was working in that garage as a watchman about eight months prior to the date of incident which is 22nd March, 1999. On that day at about 8.10 a. m. the accused was sitting on the tractor parked in front of the garage of Complainant Ashish. When the complainant went inside, he was told that the accused is sitting there with the intention of assaulting the deceased who was the owner of the garage. Therefore, the complainant tried to contact the owner on phone who was told that he has already left for the garage. The deceased thereafter arrived, went into the garage and offered morning prayers before the photo frames of god. The accused went in, lifted an iron pipe lying there and hit it on the head of victim Alok, who, as a result of which, was hurt and there was scuffle between the accused and the deceased. In that scuffle, deceased fell down and the accused gave two more blows with the iron pipe on his head. The others present there ran away. Complainant went to the police to complain and when he returned after telling the police about the incident he saw accused was throwing the articles out of the garage. Police came, arrested the accused and investigated the offence. To prove the case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and, therefore, sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, as aforesaid. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal.