RAMSEWAK CHANNULAL GAUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Ramsewak was convicted by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for having committed an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) The facts shorn of details are as under: One Channulal lives with his family which includes his wife, three sons and daughter-in-law in Mankapur area of Nagpur. The name of his eldest son is Vijay- the deceased. His other two sons are Deocharan and Ramsewak the appellant. His eldest son Vijay-the deceased did not marry since he was required to shoulder the responsibility of the maintenance of his family. He was a vegetable vendor. He used to be therefore out of house for quite some time. On the date of the incident Vijay came back home around 4 p.m. He has had his meals. After taking his dinner, Vijay went to bed on the terrace of the house. Deocharan also came back home. He also took his dinner and all of them went to bed on the night of 25.4.1991. While the members of the family were sleeping, Deocharan heard a thumping sound on the terrace. He, therefore, woke up his father Channulal and went to the terrace. Deocharan found Vijay in a pool of blood and was dead. Deocharan started weeping. Other members also started weeping and they shouted loudly. Channulal then went to Police Station and lodged a report that his son was killed by an unknown person after hitting Vijay with some heavy object. The Police came to the spot. They had drawn the panchanama of the spot, seized the clothes on the person of the deceased as well as on the person of appellant Ramsewak. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant Ramsewak while in custody made a statement that he would discover the dumbel with which he had done Vijay to death. All the articles which were seized were sent to Chemical Analyser and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge after recording the evidence found that the death of deceased was homicidal and Ramsewak committed the murder. Having held so, he proceeded to convict the accused and sentenced as stated above. Against this conviction, this appeal is preferred.