BALU JANGALU MADANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31/12/2003 passed in the Sessions Case No. 60 of 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, whereby the Appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 3000/, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, present appeal is filed by the appellant through jail.

(2.) Brief facts which led to the prosecution of the Appellant are: - The complaint was lodged by Bhagwan Jagu Kokare (PW4) informing Phaltan Police Station about the incident of murder of Dnyandev Jagu Kokare, resident of village Wadani, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara. According to the first informant, the appellant Balu Madne had entertained grudge against Dnyandeo on account of the fact that about ten years prior to the incident, the appellant had tried to snatch Mangalsutra (marriage string) from the neck of Dnyandev's wife. During that incident Dnyandev had assaulted the appellant Balu Madane and latter Dnyandeo was prosecuted pursuant to that incident. About eight months prior to the incident also when Dnyandev Kokare was returning to his house, the appellant had raised quarrel with him and had assaulted Dnyandeo on 10.2.2003 while Dnyandeo wanted to pay electricity bill and went to Mauje Widani, Taluka Phaltan. He had not returned to the house. On 11.2.2003 first informant was informed on telephone, pursuant to telephonic message received by neighbourer Nandkumar Nerkar from one Dr Balasaheb Shende, that body of Dnyandev is lying on the spot near Veterinary Hospital. First informant proceeded to the spot and saw dead body of Dnyandev with multiple injuries on his body, as also blood stained stone lying near the dead body. During the enquiry by the first informant, he came to know from Vishwas that Balu Madne (appellant) raised quarrel with Dnyandev on account of refusal by Dnyandeo to give liquor and money for consuming the liquor and appellant had assaulted Dnyandeo by means of a big stone causing him multiple injuries and murdered him. Thus, the first informant reported the incident to Phaltan Police Station on 11.2.2003 which gave rise to the first information report in respect of offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C.

(3.) The investigation followed. A.P.I.Shri Dipak Deshmukh who recorded complaint (Exh.22) and registered Crime No.35/2003 under section 302 of I.P.C. at Phaltan Police Station on 12.10.2002 proceeded to the spot of incident where Dnyandev was lying dead and drew inquest panchnama regarding the condition of the dead body of Dnyandeo (Exh.20) then he sent dead body of Dnyandeo Kokare for postmortem examination. He also drew panchnama in respect of the spot of the incident (Exh.18) and irregular shaped stone (weighing about 10 kilograms), one bicycle and one lemon fruit lying on the spot of the incident, were seized and sealed with paper slip bearing signatures of panchas. The weapon of offence i.e. stone (Article No.6) was identified by PW 13 Dipak Deshmukh as the same which was seized on the spot as also the bicycle (Article No.7). He had collected blood mixed sample of earth and ordinary sample of earth. (Article Nos. 8,9 and 10) then proceeded to record statement of witnesses. In the course of investigation, the articles such as clothes (Article Nos. 1 to 5) were recovered from the dead body under panchnama (Exh.29). Post mortem examination was done by Dr Waghmare (PW 12) as per the postmortem notes (Exh.34). The appellant Balu was arrested on 11.2.2003 at 11:05 p.m. under panchnama (Exh.16). He was referred for medical examination. His clothes (Shirt and Pyjama), which were found stained with blood, were seized and sealed in presence of panchas under panchnama (Exh.31). The Investigating Officer also sought opinion regarding possibility of causing injuries by means of stone seized during the course of investigation from the spot of incident, and opinion in respect thereof was obtained from the doctor (Exh.37). Seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyser/Forensic Science Laboratory on 20.2.2003 duly acknowledged by Chemical Analyser's office. Reports from Chemical Analyser's office were received (Exh.49).