STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRAMOD DHANRAJ GAJBHIYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal and revision application, the appellant-State as well as the revision applicant-complainant, respectively, challenge the judgment and order dated 26.4.2006 passed by the learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 39/2005, thereby acquitting accused-Pramod Gajbhiye of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) A report was lodged at Police Station, Loni on 05.12004 at the instance of the revision applicant-Manohar Ingole. It was his version that on 04.12004 at about 7.30 p.m. while he was getting himself warm by sitting in front of the fire (shekoti) along with his brother Santosh Ingole and nephew Virendra Ingole, he heard a cry "melo re". On hearing cry, these three persons immediately rushed to the spot. Two other persons also followed them. On reaching the spot, they found Suresh Ingole lying in injured condition and Pramod Gajbhiye standing with sickle in his hand. He gave warning and threat that if anybody makes an attempt to come close, he will meet with dire consequences. The blood was oozing from the injuries sustained by victim Suresh on his stomach. Some people gathered at the spot. One Vinayak Ingole, nephew of Manohar Ingole was sent to police station. By the time police reached at the spot, Suresh was dead. Due to enmity between victim Suresh and accused Pramod of lodging a report, Pramod was carrying grudge against Suresh. With this revengeful intention, Pramod done Suresh to death.

(3.) On receiving the report as aforesaid, crime was registered bearing No. 102/2004 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigating agency was set in motion. By carrying out necessary and usual formalities of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Pramod Gajbhiye. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandgaon Khandeshwar committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Amravati for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused was of total denial and false implication.