SURDAS BALKRISHNA KIRGAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 04/12/2006 passed in Sessions Case No.164 of 2006 by which the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli has convicted the Appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and the Appellant was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for three months. The Appellant was the sole accused in the said case.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the Appellant was son of the deceased Balkrishna Kirgat. The deceased had two sons including the present Appellant who was the younger son from his first marriage. The deceased contracted the second marriage with his own niece 20 years prior to the incident which took place on 01/03/2006. According to the prosecution case, on that day the Appellant had gone to village Karnal at about 1.30 p.m. where the deceased was residing with his second wife and two daughters. It is the prosecution case that between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., the Appellant assaulted the deceased with a big iron rod and a big flat grinding stone ('Pata') on the head and committed his murder. At about 6.30 p.m., the wife of the deceased came home to find the deceased lying on the floor with blood oozing from his injuries. She raised shouts. The neighbours gathered there. She was taken to Sangli Rural Police Station where her FIR was lodged at about 10.10 p.m. on 01/03/2006 vide C.R.No.17 of 2006 under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was arrested on 03/03/2006. The clothes which he was wearing at the time of the arrest were seized and sent to the CA. A big iron rod admeasuring about 58 inches in length and 3 inches in diameter was recovered at the instance of the Appellant and that too was sent to the CA. The clothes of the deceased and the blood collected from the spot were sent to the CA and all these articles showed the presence of blood of 'B' group. During investigation, various panchanamas were carried out. Statements of various witnesses were recorded and at the conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and was tried as Sessions Case No.164 of 2006 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli.

(3.) During the trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. PW 1 Ranjana Balasaheb Patil is the widow of the deceased who had lodged the FIR. She had also deposed about the possible motive. PW 2 Motiram Suratarm Sonar was the panch for spot panchanama which was conducted on the next day i.e. 02/03/2006 between 8.30 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. PW 3 Pradeep Bhagwan Waghmare was examined as the panch in whose presence the iron rod admeasuring 58 inches in length and 3 inches in diameter was recovered. PW 4 Anil Jagannath Mane was examined as a panch who was present when the clothes of the Appellant were seized at the police station on 03/03/2006 at about 6.00 p.m. PW 5 Swati Balasaheb Patil was the child witness and was daughter of the deceased and she was examined to prove the fact that the Appellant had come to her school at about 1.30 p.m. on 01/03/2006 to make inquiries about the deceased and the PW 1 and to find their address. PW 6 Nanda Mahadeo Bad was the neighbour of the deceased who had seen the Appellant in the house with the deceased where the deceased was residing at about 4.00 p.m. on 01/03/2006. PW 7 Jaywant Hindurao Patil was a teacher in the school where PW 5 Swati was studying and who had accompanied the PW 5 when the Appellant was making inquiries with her. PW 8 Dr. Sangita Rangrao Gurav had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW 9 Dilip Shripatrao Chougule was the Investigating Officer.