VIJAY RAMCHANDRA DIWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused has challenged the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.138 of 2001. The accused who was 17 years of age at the time he committed the offence has been convicted and sentenced under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused and his mother had a grievance against the deceased since he was allotted a house in the Gharkul scheme. On 15.9.2000, the deceased returned home from work as a labourer. At about 8 pm, the accused went to the house of the deceased and called out to him. The deceased went out of the house. There was a heated exchange of words between them. The accused whipped out a sword which he had hidden behind him and struck the deceased forcefully on the forehead. The deceased fell to the ground with bleeding injuries. The wife of the deceased raised an alarm by shouting that the accused had given her husband a blow on the forehead. The accused ran away from the spot. The victim was taken to Cottage hospital, Karad and thereafter was referred to another hospital. He succumbed to the injuries sustained by him at about 10 pm. An FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased against the accused. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The accused was arrested at about 12 noon on 16.9.2000. He was charged for having committed the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After the charge was framed, the trial was committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) WE have perused the entire evidence on record with the assistance of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The assault on the deceased by the accused has been proved by PW3 who was an eye witness to the incident. Her ocular evidence is matched by the medical evidence on record which shows that the deceased had sustained an injury on the left parietal region. There was a fracture of her frontal bone. The blow struck by the accused was so forceful that the frontal bone was fractured and the brain was incised. The Doctors examined by the prosecution PW6 and PW7 have both opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were on account of a sharp edged weapon being used. The recovery of the sword at the instance of the accused is corroborative evidence which can be accepted. Both PW3 and PW4 had seen the accused run away from the scene of offence towards railway yard. The recovery of the sword was made from this railway yard and therefore, can be accepted.