BISHNU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein takes exception to his conviction for having committed offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Penal Code). By judgment dated 31-1-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was residing along with his wife - Shamabai and his daughter Nargis. Nargis was mentally ill and the appellant was was giving her treatment. On 15-5-2012, the appellant alongwith his daughter had been to the Aurvedic Doctor and had returned back at 1.30 p.m. Between 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. after taking dinner the appellant gave some medicines to his daughter. Nargis took the medicine and thereafter spat out the same. On this ground, the appellant got annoyed on her. He took an axe/hoe from the house and started running after his daughter. In front of the house of one Rekha Mallewar, the appellant gave three blows to Nargis near her neck. After she collapsed there, the appellant returned home and gave blows to his wife. She died on the spot. The appellant kept the axe in the Courtyard and went away on his bicycle. On receiving necessary information, the police conducted investigation. The appellant was arrested. The appellant was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. After the charge was framed, the appellant did not plead guilty and was tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted in the manner stated herein above.

(3.) Shri S. J. Gadmade, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not liable to be convicted on the basis of the evidence available on record. He submitted that though it was claimed that there were eye witnesses to the incident in question, the deposition of said eye witnesses did not corroborate the evidence on record. It was submitted that the medical evidence as regards nature of injuries sustained by the deceased did not support the version of the eye witnesses inasmuch as though it was stated by PW-8 Deochand that the appellant had given 2 to 3 blows on the backside of the neck of his daughter, the postmortem report did not indicate any such injuries on the body of the deceased. It was then submitted that the description of the spot as deposed by the witnesses did not match the description as per the spot map at Exhibit-19. Though the appellant was arrested on 16-5-2012 at 1.30 a.m., his clothes that were stated to have blood stains were seized on 17-5-2012 at 2 p.m. The incriminating material though available on the spot on 15-5-2012 was not seized immediately, but the seizure was effected on 16-5-2012 at 6.30 a.m. It was, therefore, submitted that on the basis of the evidence available on record, the conviction of the appellant was liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh and others v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 826, Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa AIR 1987 SC 1507 and Vishvash Machhinder Saptal Vs. The State of Union Territory 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 3282.