NISAR BANEMIYA SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has challenged his conviction under section 302 and the sentence for life imprisonment as also the fine imposed on him.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 29.2.2000, at around 5.45 pm, one Sharad Shravan Ghodake was accosted by the accused. There was an exchange of words between the two. The accused was seen kicking the bicycle of Sharad. This incident occurred in the front of a shop owned by PW3. The accused was brandishing a sickle. The deceased Nitin who was the cousin of Sharad came upto the spot where Sharad and the accused were having an altercation. It is the prosecution's case that the accused dealt a fatal blow with the sickle on Nitin. The accused escaped from the spot. The accused was arrested after a month on 3.3.2000. The police recovered the sickle from his house which bore human blood stains of the blood group of the deceased Nitin. An externment order against the accused was in force when the incident had occurred. The accused was thus charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 142 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

(3.) PW 1, Sangeeta is the complainant in this case and is the sister of the deceased. She has stated that she found the deceased lying in front of the shop owned by PW3. She has deposed that the deceased, after being assaulted with the sickle, was brought into her house. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 are eye witnesses to the incident. PW2 has stated that she was purchasing some articles at the shop of PW3 when the incident occurred. She has stated that she saw PW5 standing with a bicycle in front of a shop of PW3 at about 5.45pm. The accused was trying to snatch the bicycle out from PW5's hand. The deceased Nitin came to the spot and informed the accused that he owned the bicycle when the accused assaulted the deceased on the left side of his neck. This witness has further stated that the accused then fled from the spot. She has denied any suggestions to the effect that she had not witnessed the incident. Her testimony has been corroborated by PW3, the owner of the shop. This witness has corroborated the evidence of PW2 in all material particulars. he has also stated that he knew the accused who used to stay in the vicinity. Similarly, PW4 has witnessed the incident from the front door of her house. She has also deposed to the effect that the accused had dealt the fatal blow to the deceased with the sickle. This witness stated that she saw PW1 and others remove the deceased to the house of PW1, after which the deceased was taken to the hospital. She has denied a suggestion that the deceased sustained injuries on account of the bicycle falling on him. The next witness examined by the prosecution is Sharad who was holding the bicycle when the accused had an exchange of words with him. He has stated that when he reached in front of the shop of PW3, he saw the accused flourishing a sickle in his right hand. When questioned, the accused kicked the bicycle he was holding. By this time, Nitin, the deceased, had arrived at the spot and requested the accused to refrain from kicking the bicycle. This enraged the accused who dealt the blow on the left side of the neck of Nitin. The accused then escaped from that spot. The prosecution has also examined one of the Panch witnesses, PW6, who was present when the two sickles were recovered at the instance of the accused. PW7 and PW8 are the police officers who investigated the crime. PW9 is the medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. He has opined that the death of the deceased occurred on account of the haemorrhagic shock following injuries.