POPAT BALU VANJARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, hereinafter referred to as "the accused," has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge of Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1983 by his judgment and order dated 30th of November, 1983. By the same order the accused has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution must be briefly stated in order to understand the judgment of the Court below and the arguments advanced before this Court challenging the said order of conviction and sentence. The deceased was one Pandit Sukdev Pachonde of Village Tarkhede in Pachora Taluka of Jalgaon District. On 9th of May, 1983, the said Pandit Sukdev and the accused were seen together by at least three persons, two of whom have been examined as prosecution witnesses, in a field belonging to one Narayan Savaji. That field was situated in Village Galan Khurd, also in Pachora Taluka. Some enmity between the deceased and the accused was sought to be established by the prosecution. However, it is not necessary to refer to the same because ultimately the question as to whether the accused is guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted will have to be answered on the basis of the testimonies of two persons who claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses. These two persons namely Bhangraj Gangaram Pawar, examined as P.W. 4 and Chunilal Chandrasing Rathod, examined as P.W. 5, say that at about 4 p.m. on 9th of May, 1983, when they along with the father of P.W. 4 Bhangraj were returning to their village after attending the Bazar day of Village Nagardevala, they noticed the accused and the deceased in the field of Narayan Savaji. They were at that time standing under a Behada tree. Though both these witnesses say that they thought that the accused would steal mangoes, still they did not take any immediate steps. On the other hand, they went to their village and returned to the field of Narayan Savaji on bicycle. At that time on Vishwanath had also accompanied them, but the said Vishwanath has not been examined by the prosecution.

(3.) It is the prosecution case, as unfolded through the testimonies of these two witnesses, that at that time the accused had felled down the deceased by giving him blows with weapons which have been described as blades of harrow. The accused was also abusing the deceased for having not returned an amount of Rs. 80 which the deceased owed on account of consumption of liquor. It has been alleged by the prosecution that after so assaulting the deceased the accused lifted him and took him to the field of Jagan Patil where he was thrown away. These witnesses who returned to their home did not inform anyone about the incident. P.W. 4 Bhangraj, however, says that he informed his father but his father has not been examined.