SOPAN NIVRUTTI SURADKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused who was convicted under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 10 years has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal are as under : on 5-4-1999 Devkabai had gone along with her son Vasudeo, to the house of one Namdeo Vithoba in the morning around 10 a. m. While she was at the house of Namdeo the accused came there. He said to Deokabai as to why she had abused his parents-in-law and why she said that his wife as unchaste. He gave threats to Deokabai. Later Deokabai came home, she narrated the incident to her husband. Her husband went to persuade the accused not to do anything. In the meanwhile Deokabai also came out of the house in search of her husband and her son Sudhakar. It is alleged that on her way the accused accosted both of them. Accused seeing Deokabai assaulted her with an axe in his hand. He dealt two blows on the chest of Deokabai and also on the hand. Banabai whose house is close-by came running there to save Deokabai. She prevented the accused from dealing further blows. She was brought with the help of one Jagdeo who was watching the incident in the courtyard. Banabai wrapped the wounds on the person of Deokabai. Deokabai was later removed to the hospital. Jagdeo Paraskar lodged the report with the police. Police registered the offence, arrested the accused. Accused was interrogated. He agreed to discover an axe which he had kept at his house. Accordingly he discovered the axe which was seized by the police. The police had also seized clothes on the person of Deokabai and drawn spot panchanama. Upon completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class. Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions framed charge. Accused pleaded not guilty. Upon consideration of the evidence Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. Being aggrieved by that this appeal is preferred.

(3.) P. W. 4 Deokabai has deposed that accused is son of her husband's sister. She states that she had gone to the house of Namdeo Vithoba when accused came and said to her that she had abused his parents-in-law and suspected the fidelity of his wife. She states that saying so he abused her and threatened to kill her. He had stone in his hand at that time. It is further stated by her that Shrikant son of namdeo took the stone from the accused and took him to his house. It is in her evidence further that she went home later and when her husband came she narrated the incident to him. It is also in her evidence that her husband and son went out and she also followed after some time but did not find them. It is also stated by P. W. 4 Deokabai that while she was returning home the accused came from the open space behind the house of Banabai and asked them to stop and when they stopped accused caught hands of her son Wasudeo and said that he will kill her husband and son Sudhakar. She stated that when she tried to save her son Wasudeo, accused inflicted blows with axe on left side of her chest and left elbow. She also states that thereafter the accused ran away. Banabai came and accosted the accused. She further states that Banabai and Jagdeo brought her to the courtyard. Her wound was wrapped and she was taken to the hospital. There appears omission with regard to coming to the house of Namdeo and her son coming with her to the house of Namdeo. There is also an omission about the accused giving threats to her at the house of Namdeo. These omissions can just be ignored. They are not such as to affect the veracity of P. W. 4 Deokabai. It is suggested to P. W. 4 that she wanted accused to marry a person from her maternal uncle's village and the accused had refused and that, therefore, there is enmity. The suggestion has been denied by the witness. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the witness to discredit her. It is in fact stated by P. W. 4 Deokabai that she had attended the marriage of the accused which took place just two months prior to the incident. It may be observed here that as far as actual incident of assault is concerned there is virtually no cross-examination of the witness. It is simply suggested to the witness that on way to the field she fell down and suffered injuries. This simple suggestion has been denied and cannot carry any weight. This suggestion cannot carry any weight for the reason that such a suggestion is not given to P. W. 3 Dr. Anil nor is such suggestion given to even p. W. 1 Jagdeo. Accused, therefore, has certainly failed to explain the injuries on the person of Deokabai.