VISHWAS NANASAHEB NIMBALKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant-accused has been charged with having murdered his brother on 13th July 1999 between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. The prosecution has alleged that the accused fatally assaulted his brother Shamrao with a sickle on his head, back and shoulder. The accused was arrested on 14th July 1999 and charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution has examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. PW6, Ratnabai, is the sister of the Appellant and the deceased. She has deposed that the Appellant was disgruntled because of some property dispute between himself and the deceased Shamrao. The property of their father had been partitioned ten years earlier between three brothers i.e. Shamrao-the deceased, Vishwas-the Appellant and Balasaheb. She has deposed that Shamrao was often threatened by the Appellant as the Appellant was not willing to let Shamrao have his share of the property. She has stated that on 13th July 1999 i.e. the day of the incident, she was staying in the same house as the Appellant and his family, in a separate room. The Appellant came home and mentioned that he had killed Shamrao. On hearing this, the witness and the wife of the Appellant cried out aloud. The Appellant told his wife not to shout. He then left the house, locking the common entrance door to the house. Although, this witness raised a hue and cry, none of her neighbours bothered to open the bolted door. The witness has also stated that the sons of the Appellant had gone to the farm house of Shamrao and verified that he had indeed been killed. This witness has then deposed that she left for Asgoli, where Shamrao s family stayed, at around 7.00 a.m. on 14th July 1999 and informed them of Shamrao s death. Shamrao s wife and son then accompanied this witness to his farm house at Asgoli where they found the police drawing up the spot panchanama. The evidence of this witness has not been shaken in the cross-examination. She has stated that she and the wife of Shamrao, her brother Balasaheb s son Shivaji had been to the police station for recording their statements about four to five days after the incident.

(3.) PW5 is the panch witness who has deposed regarding the recovery of the sickle. This witness has stated that the Appellant took him and the police to his field. They entered a hut in the field and the accused took out the sickle which was kept under a bag and plastic paper. The sickle bore blood stains on the blade. The Chemical Analyser s report which is on record indicates that the blood stains on the sickle belonged to blood group "B". The blood group of the Appellant is "O", while that of the deceased was "B". Obviously, therefore, the sickle has been used for assaulting the deceased.