ULHAS KAUTHANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri G. Teles, learned Advocate for the appellant who took us through the judgment under challenge and submitted that it was a clear case where the impugned judgment warranted an interference and the conviction passed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC was required to be interfered with. It was his contention that at the highest and without prejudice, the conviction had to be altered to that under Section 304(ii) IPC as no intention to commit the offence of murder was proved against him. Shri S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submitted that there was no reason to interference with the judgment under challenge and the conviction had to be upheld. Shri G. Teles, learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance in the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Subhash Samal Vs. State of Goa (Criminal Appeal No. 5/2011) and Suresh Behra Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No. 3/2010).

(2.) The question which arises for consideration in the backdrop of the material on record is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge had properly appreciated the material on record to hold that the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder had been committed by the appellant and or whether it was a fit case in the circumstances of the case to warrant interference with the judgment under the challenge.

(3.) Shri G. Teles, took us through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record to buttress his case that the incident had occurred on the spur of moment while exercising the right to self-defence and there was no basis for the learned Trial Judge to hold that he had not exercised the right of self-defence. We would consider the evidence and decide the appeal appropriately. There were in all 10 witnesses examined by the State in support of its case to bring home the guilt of the accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, four being eye witnesses to the incident of assault, one being the medical officer, the Investigating officer and 3 other witnesses.