PRAFULKUMAR BHARMARDAS DAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us is convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.

(2.) According to the prosecution, one Raj Punjabi was earning his livelihood in Mumbai as a painter. The accused was employed in Mumbai on a casual basis and worked as a plumber. On the relevant day i.e. on 23.4.1998, one Chandrakant Mishra, a Civil Engineer engaged one Pravinkumar as a contractor to complete the paint job on a building known as Beuna Vista. Raj Punjabi was one of the workers engaged by Pravinkumar for painting the building. It is the case of the prosecution that Raj Punjabi, not only worked as a painter, but erected the scaffolding on the building. The case of the prosecution is that, on 23.4.1998, Raj Punjabi, the accused, one Batka and another person known as Hydrabadi were engaged to erect the scaffolding on Beuna Vista building in Bandra. A quarrel erupted between Raj Punjabi on the one hand and the accused and Batka on the other regarding payment of wages. The accused and Batka were insisting that they should get higher wages which was agreed to by the contractor when they were engaged for the day. Raj Punjabi, on the other hand, was trying to pacify them saying that the extra amount would be paid only after the contractor, Chandrakant came to the site. Raj Punjabi on the one hand and the accused and Batka on the other hand were engaged in a fist fight. This discontent, according to the prosecution continued because each of the workers was not paid the wages that he had been promised. According to the prosecution, the accused and Batka left the site while Raj Punjabi and Pravinkumar and a worker known as Hydrabadi, engaged a rickshaw to proceed to the Bandra Station. At the junction of Water Field Road and 30th Road, another rickshaw overtook their rickshaw and halted in front of it. Raj Punjabi was pulled out by the accused and Batka. They assaulted him with fist blows. Batka then inflicted a knife blow on Raj Punjabi s chest. The accused caught hold of the victim at his waist and Batka inflicted another blow with the knife. The victim collapsed and the accused and Batka left the scene of offence. Pravinkumar informed the police. The victim was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. The accused was arrested on 15.9.1998, five months after the incident. He denied having committed the offence. He was charged under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered Raj Punjabi. Significantly, the other accused, Batka is absconding and has not been tried. The accused was tried by the Sessions Court, Mumbai and was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The prosecution has relied upon 12 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. PW-1 is the police constable who served the summons on the complainant Pravinkumar. PW-2 is Pravinkumar, the complainant. PW-3 is a tea-stall owner who runs his business near the Beuna Vista building, on which the accused and the victim were working. PW-4 is the panch witness. He has proved the inquest panchanama and the spot panchanama. PW-5 is the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the victim. PW-6 is the plan maker who has drawn the plan of the scene of offence. PW-7 is a person who runs a tea stall at the junction where the incident occurred. PW-8 is the Sub-Inspector who was involved with the investigation. PW-9 is the police officer who arrested the accused on 15.9.1998 from Vile Parle railway station. PW-10 is another police officer involved with the investigation who took charge of the accused from the Juhu Police Station. PW-11 and 12 are the police officers who were attached to Khar Police Station at the relevant time.