STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ANKUSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that falls for our consideration in the present appeal filed by the State is, what offence the accused have committed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, has convicted them of the offence under S. 304, Part II, read with S. 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each, which they have already undergone.

(2.) The principal evidence led on behalf of the prosecution consists of Ku. Sindhu (P.W. 1), Ku. Pushpa (P.W. 2) and the medical evidence of Dr. Dongre (P.W. 8). It is not necessary for us to discuss the other evidence since Rukhmabai (P.W. 3) and Sita (P.W. 4) have turned hositle. Thus, we are left only with the evidence of Ku. Sindhu and Ku. Pushpa besides medical evidence. Both these witnesses are the daughters of deceased Pandurang. The incident in question took place on 14-6-1981 at about 3.30 p.m. at Junimangalwari, Nagpur.

(3.) Sindhu has deposed that at the time of the incident, the accused persons resided in front of her house in Koshti Mohalla at Nagpur. On the day of the incident, her father had gone to attend the marriage of the son of Doma Tatakade, from where he returned at about 11.00 a.m. According to her, the three accused, who are real brothers, also attended the said marriage and returned back more or less at the same time. According to her, her father went to accused No. 3 Ramdas to purchase liquor, but accused Ramdas declined to supply the same and hence her father started abusing him. She has deposed that on the same day at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. when her father after taking meals was sitting on the ota in front of her house, all the three accused came there armed with weapons like Guptis and knives and assaulted her father Pandurang. Her evidence has been fully corroborated by the evidence of Pushpa (P.W. 2). This evidence has already been believed by the learned trial Judge. He has, however, given the benefit of the Exception to S. 300 of the I.P.C. and, therefore, convicted the accused persons under S. 304, Part II by recording a finding that they have assaulted the deceased under sudden and grave provocation.