PANDURANG VITHOBA DHAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 15.4.1996 in Sessions Case No.402 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THIS an unfortunate incident in which, the accused, who is the maternal uncle, is said to have assaulted his nephew-Sudam which resulted in his death. According to the prosecution on 23.6.1991 at about 8 p.m. there was some quarrel between the accused and Sudam and during that quarrel, the accused assaulted Sudam with a wooden log and caused injuries. Then Sudam fell down and became unconscious. The accused himself went and told Sudam's brother-P.W.1 and he then rushed to the spot and saw his younger brother lying with injury on his head. He took the injured to a private doctor P.W.2 and subsequently he was shifted to Government Hospital where he succumbed to the injury and died next day early morning. In the meanwhile P.W.1-Navanath lodged F.I.R. The case was registered against the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, after the death of Sudam, the FIR was altered to one under Section 302 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested. It is also the prosecution case that on the information of the accused and at his instance, the wooden log came to seized which was bloodstained. Some witnesses examined during the course of investigation. The dead body of Sudam was subjected to post-mortem examination. After usual investigation, chargesheet was filed alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

(3.) THE prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also filed a written statement. He did not produce any defence witness. After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and held that the incident took place as alleged by the prosecution and Sudam died as a result of assault at the hands of the accused. However, he found that the accused had no intention to kill Sudam and it was a sudden quarrel and therefore, convicted the accused for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under later part of 304 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default to suffer R.I. for six months. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up with this appeal.