HARI BISAN PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the original accused-appellant against the judgment dated 29.7.91 in Sessions Trial No.104/91 on the file of 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THE appellant accused was prosecuted by the Police for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. THE prosecution case in brief is as follows : One Channu is the deceased. THE deceased and the accused are adjacent owners of land. THEre is a common boundary between the two lands. THEre is also a channel running between the two lands. According to the prosecution, on 6.11. 1990, at about 5 p. m. both the deceased Channu and the accused were in their respective lands. THE eye-witness Vithal (P. W. 2) was cutting grass in the land of the deceased. At that time, deceased Channu cut the grass and kept it in the channel. In that connection of keeping the grass in the channel, there was an altercation between the deceased and the accused. THEre was a scuffle between them. THEn Vithoba (P. W. 2) tried to intervene. THE accused pushed him aside. THEn, it is alleged that the accused gave blows from his axe on Channu who sustained injuries and fell down. Channu died as a result of the injuries at the spot itself. THE death of Channu was conveyed to his uncle Manikrao (P. W. 1) THEn P. W. 1 came to the spot and saw deceased Channu lying dead at the spot. He questioned P. W. 2 who was weeping nearby and came to know of the incident. THEn he went to the Police Station and lodged an oral complaint which was recorded by the Police as per Ex.18.THEn Sub Inspector Sk. Shabbir (P. W. 4) registered a case vide Crime No.91/90 and took up investigation. At that time, the accused himself voluntarily appeared before the Sub Inspector and produced the axe. He immediately went to the spot and kept a watch on the dead body since it was night. On the next morning, he held an inquest on the dead body. He also prepared a spot panchanama. THEn, he sent the dead body of Channu for post mortem examination. On the same day, the accused came to be arrested. He was also sent to Medical Officer for his examination. After the usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed alleging that the accused has committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment. It was argued that the incident has not taken place in the manner spoken to by P. W.2.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the accused has acted in self-defence and while he was rotating the axe, accidentally the blow fell on the deceased. Alternatively, it was submitted that the offence does not fall under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and only a lesser offence is made out. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment.