RAVINDRA SHALIK NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

(2.) Both the criminal appeals are directed against the common judgment dated-28-1-2002 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal whereby all the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rupees one thousand each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Appellant Ravindra is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of rupees five hundred, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. Hence, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by the common judgment.

(3.) Learned Counsel Shri. Daga submitted that testimony of P. W.1 Vandana is full of material omissions and contradictions and, therefore, the trial Court should not have placed reliance on the same. It was contended that P. W.1 Vandana in her first information report gave entirely different version of the prosecution case than the one given in her testimony before the Court and, therefore, substantive evidence of this witness does not corroborate contents of the first information report. It was submitted that in the first information report, complainant Vandana has stated that all the appellants inflicted blows by axe and sharp edged weapons on the head, abdomen and near left side waist portion of deceased Kisan. It is also mentioned in the first information report that appellants Ravindra and Naresh inflicted injuries with the sharp edged weapons on the abdomen of husband of the complainant with intention to kill him. It was contended that in the ocular testimony of this witness, she has stated that at the time of incident, appellant Ravindra was armed with gupti and appellant Naresh was having knife. Appellant Ravindra inflicted injury on the abdomen of deceased Kisan with gupti and appellant Naresh caused injury on the head of deceased Kisan by a knife. The complainant also stated in her evidence that appellant Shalik was armed with axe and gave blows by axe on the head of deceased Kisan.