RAMESH BABURAO PANDHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants who stand convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 and 447 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 2000/- each, with default condition of undergoing further rigorous imprisonment for six months and R. I. for one month and fine of rs. 500/- each, with default condition and further R. I. , in the event of non-payment of fine for the respective offences, by learned II ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, by judgment and order dated 31st December, 2004 in Sessions Case No. 82/2004, by this appeal, questions the correctness of their conviction and sentence.

(2.) Such of the facts, as are necessary for decision of this appeal, may be briefly stated thus : pw-10 Manohar Jadhav, a Police Head constable attached to Police Station. Pahur, received an intimation from the Medical Officer of Rural Hospital, Pahur, about admission of one Bhagwat Pandhare at about 4. 30 a. m. PW-10 head Constable Jadhav was further informed that the said Bhagwat had succumbed to his injuries. The aforesaid intimation is at Exh. 29. On the strength of said admission at Exh. 29, an accidental death came to be registered at Sr. No. 9/2004 at the said Police Station. The enquiry in respect of accidental death was, therefore, entrusted to PW-11 ASI Laxman Patil. ASI Laxman Patil, on being entrusted with the enquiry in respect of accidental death of deceased Bhagwat, proceeded to the scene of offence and drew the scene of offence panchnama at Exh. 23 in presence of PW-2 prakash Deshmukh. The said scene of offence was allegedly shown to PW-6 Raju, whom prosecution claims to be an eye-witness. From the scene of the offence, a white rope vide article "a" came to be seized. Inquest Panchnama at exh. 21 came to be prepared in presence of PW-1 haridas. Dead body of deceased was referred for post-mortem examination and post-mortem was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Sameena Habib khan. PW-4 Habib Khan found that there were no external injuries on the dead body. On internal examination, she noticed that lungs were congested and stomach contained digested food material with offensive smell. She accordingly expressed her opinion that deceased died as a result of some unknown poisoning. The post-mortem report is at Exh. 27. The viscera which was preserved, was forwarded to the Chemical analyser and Chemical Analysers report at exh. 28 shows that viscera contained organo chloro insecticide commonly known as Endo-sulphan. It was also opined that the level which was detected in the viscera was a fatal dose involving cases of poisoning by Endo-sulphan. PW-1 ASI Laxman thereafter, entrusted the investigation to PW-12 Rameshsingh Pardeshi, an API, who was attached to Pahur Police station. On the same day, in the evening. PW-5 ganesh, real brother of deceased Bhagwat, came to the Police Station and lodged his complaint at Exh. 32. On the strength of the said complaint lodged by PW-5 Ganesh, an offence vide Crime No. 27/2004 under sections 302, 448, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian penal Code came to be registered at 9. 00 p. m. Thereafter, PW-12 ASI Pardeshi recorded statements of witnesses. On 1. 4. 2004, he arrested all the accused and during custodial interrogation of appellant-Manoj, appellant Manoj expressed his willingness, in the presence of pw-3 Anil, to point out the place where tin of endo-sulphan was kept. Accordingly, memorandum at Exh. 46 came to be drawn. The accused took the Panch and the Police to the place of his residence. Accused-Manoj, on entering the house produced one steel container which was kept beneath the cot. The said container of capacity of one litre, came to be attached vide seizure memo at Exh. 25. The said tin of Endo-sulphan is article "b". Statements of witnesses under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came to be recorded. The seized articles were forwarded along with requisition at Exh. 48, to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the Chemical analyser in respect of the contents of the tin containing poison is at exh. 49. The report of the Chemical Analyser shows that the contents of the said tin were organo chloro insecticide commonly known as endo-sulphan.

(3.) Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellants came to be filed.