LAWS(BOM)-1996-6-88

PANDURANG TUKARAM ITHAPE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 05, 1996
PANDURANG TUKARAM ITHAPE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 31-8-1981 passed by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No.27 of 1981, convicting and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life, under section 302 read with 34 IPC, have come up in appeal before us.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case runs as follows :- The deceased Pandurang Gangaram Kadam was the father of the informant Shrirang Pandurang Kadam, PW 4. He originally belonged to Ambavade, which is at a distance of 10 miles from Ambadare. Pandurang Gangaram Kadam married Bhikubai, daughter of Bhaurao Maskar, resident of Ambadare, Since she was the only issue of Bhaurao Maskar Pandurang Kadam came to Ambadare and started residing there as "Ghar Javai" of Bhaurao Maskar. This was disliked by villagers of Ambadare. It is alleged that there was a enmical strain between the appellants on the one side and the deceased and the informant on the other. In the year 1974, Bhaurao Maskar maternal grand-father of the complainant prosecuted appellants Pandurang Ithape, Hanumant Ithape and one Vithal real brother of Pandurang Ithape. However, in that case, Pandurang and Hanmant were acquitted vide Judgment dated 17-1-1977 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara (copy of that judgment has been filed as a defence Exhibit). In the year 1976, Vithal was done to death and for his murder, informant, his grand-father Bhaurao Maskar and some others were prosecuted. In that case, appellant Babu Tukaram Jadhav was examined as a prosecution witness. The informant and other were convicted by the Trial Court and it appears that their appeals were also dismissed by the Bombay High Court and sentence of fine imposed on them was enhanced. According to the prosecution, on 11-8-1980, at about 9 p.m. deceased, informant and other went to bed after taking food. A perusal of the site plan (exhibit 10) shows that the deceased was sleeping inside his house at point no.3 and informant Shrirang, his mother Bhikubai and his wife Yashodabai at point no.10. The evidence is that in between point nos.3 and 10, there was a cattle-shed and a wall. The evidence further is that from point no.10, point no.3 is not visible. At about 11 a.m. on hearing sound of uneasy movements, and of writhing in pain coming from the side of point no.3 the informant got up from his sleep. He picked up a torch and flashed his torch and thereafter, to use his own words "I noticed all the four accused persons dragging my father and throwing him on the space between two Dhelaj." The place where his father was thrown is shown as point no.6, in the site plan. After throwing his father at point no.6, the accused persons are alleged to have ran away. While running away, they are said to have turned their faces once or twice towards the complainant. The informant's mother Bhikubai is also said to have seen the incident in the same manner as the informant. After accused persons had run away, the informant found that his father had sustained a bleeding injury on his head and blood was flowing from his wound. Therefore, the informant and other lifted the dead body from point no.6 and placed it at point no.7. At about midnight, the informant went to the house of the police Patil but, was informed by brother of the latter Tanaji Mahadeo Nikam PW 6, that he had gone to Pune and in case he did not return till morning, he would accompany him for lodging the FIR. Naturally, the informant waited at Tanaji's house the whole night. It rained intermittently that night.

(3.) AFTER lodging the FIR, P.H.C. Narayan Sitaram Chavan sent the information to his superiors and himself proceeded to the place of the incident. There, between 11.15 a.m. and 12.15 p.m. he prepared the panchanama of the dead body of the deceased Exhibit 15. A perusal of the panchanama shows that the deceased was putting on a torn banian and a khakhi half pant. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the Civil Hospital at Satara for autopsy. He then drew up a panchanama of the scene of the incident Exhibit 56. That panchanama was prepared between 12.30 noon to 1.45 p.m. Its perusal shows that on the stone pavement (point no.6 in the site plan) there were blood stains and some of them were rubbed and taken into custody investigation. (sic) Its perusal further shows that at the spot, where the dead body had been lifted and kept by the complainant and others, (point no.7 in the site plan) there were marks of blood. He also seized the blood-stained clothes and articles found on the place of the incident. He thereafter recorded the complainant's statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also those of his mother Bhikubai PW 5 and his wife Yashodabai PW 3. On 13-8-1980, PSI Annasaheb Yeshwant Patil PW 11 took over the investigation of the case. He arrested the four appellants. He sent the recovered articles to the Chemical Analyst at Pune. On 25-11-1980, he recorded supplementary statement of the complainant under section 161 Cr.P.C. Same day, the complainant produced a torch which he seized under a panchanama Exhibit 17. After receipt of the report of the Chemical analyst, on 23-12-1980, he submitted a charge sheet.