KASHINATH JAYARAM RAKSHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are original accused 1 and 3 respectively. They were tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.14 of 1991 along with three others for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC").

(2.) At the trial, the case of the prosecution was that 1/10/1989 was a 'Gatari Aamavasya. Sopan Rambhau Chavan, Mhatarba Zambar Chavan and Maruti Baban Chavan had gone to the liquor shop of PW4 Kamlakar Baburao Bhalerao sitauted at Bahirwadi, Thakarwadi to drink liquor. After having liquor, they started going to their house at Papalwadi. For going to Papalwadi, they had to pass by the road from Thakarwadi. The houses of the accused and their relatives are situated on the said road. When they came near the house of the accused, Mhatarba Chavan and Sopan Chavan went to the house of the accused to drink water. According to the prosecution, the accused assaulted them with axe, iron bars, wooden piece (Lodhane) and sticks, due to which they sustained injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, accused 1 along with Ganpat Rakshe and Narayan Rakshe went to a temple where a meeting of the villagers was to be held. They told the villagers that two dead bodies were lying in front of the house of accused 1. Maruti Rakshe, who was at the temple, came to the place of the incident. PW2 Fulchand Kataria, the Police Patil of the village came to the place of incident after coming to know about the occurrence. He then went to the Khed Police Station and registered the case being Crime No.104 of 1989. Investigation was set into motion. After completion of the investigation, the accused came to be charged as aforesaid.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of two eyewitnesses i.e. PW3 Ambudas Rakshe and PW5 Maruti Chavan. The defence of the accused was one of denial. The accused claimed that they are falsely implicated. The accused examined DW1 Dr. Laxman Wandekar as defence witness.