HARIBHAU BHAGWANTRAO SONAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-accused has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 29.6.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No.10 of 1992 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo R. I. for three months.

(2.) THE incident in this case has taken place on 9.9. 1991 at about 2.30 P. M. at the bank of river in village Pimpri (Thugaon) under the jurisdiction of Chandur Bazar Police Station, District Amravati. THE prosecution case is that due to old enmity, the appellant-accused assaulted the deceased with an axe while the deceased and his friends were sitting. Many persons of the village were gambling at the bank of the river and seeing this assault, they ran away. THE friends of deceased and his uncle P. W. 1 Abdul Sattar carried the injured Sk. Tannu Sk. Jabbar to Police Station, Chandur Bazar in his jeep where P. W. 1 lodged the report. On the bases of this report, the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the accused. THE accused was arrested on the next day i. e. 10.9.1991. His clothes were seized. Injured Sk. Tannu was unconscious. He was examined by P. W. 10 Dr. Kalpana Sonone. Two injuries- one lacerated wound on parietal region and the other vulsion on right ring finger were found by her. THE injured was then referred to General Hospital, Amravati from where he was taken to Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur for treatment. Sk. Tannu succumbed to his injuries on 9.10. 1991. THE offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted.

(3.) SHRI Navlani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge is grossly erroneous and illegal. He has raised the following points : (1) There is violation of Article 22 and Section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (2) The first information report is not admissible in evidence, (3) There is no motive, (4) P. W. 6 Nasirkhan and P. W. 7 Dilip cannot be eye witnesses, (5) There is gross delay in recording the statements of P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 by the Investigating Officer. The delay is not properly explained by the prosecution, (6) Adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of Janrao an eye witness, father of the deceased and other independent witnesses, (7) There is inconsistency in between the medical and ocular evidence. The learned 'a' Panel Counsel has supported the judgment of the Trial Court.