BARKYA @ BALU YADAV KHALGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged amongst others for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused death of one Vikram Kashinath Kamble on 29.4.2003 at about 10.20.20 p.m. The learned Second Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by his judgment dated 4.2.2005 convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one year. The appellant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 37 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act as also acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

(2.) In this appeal on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel has contended that there are serious lacunaes in the prosecution case. It is pointed out that there was delay in launching the F.I.R. There are serious discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. No. 7. P.W. No. 7 though claims to have been injured in the incident, did not disclose the same either to his wife or to the Doctor from whom he received the medical treatment. Though the clothes of P.W. No. 7 had blood stains, they were not seized. It is also submitted that the knife which is alleged to have been used in the incident was found in the nalla where there was flowing water therein and consequently it is impossible to find blood stains on the said knife. The knife, it is pointed out was also not forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer for his report. There are also serious discrepancies about the time of the incident considering the versions given by the eye witnesses. For all the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that this will be a fit case where there is serious doubts in the prosecution case. The learned Judge while convicting the appellant, it is submitted, did not address himself to this issue and consequently the appeal ought to be allowed by giving appellant the benefit of doubt.

(3.) The evidence of P.W. No. 9 Dr. Prakash Dnyanoba Rokade who conducted the post mortem of the deceased, discloses that there were altogether 47 injuries on the person of the deceased. All the injuries were ante mortem injuries. The cause of death is given due to traumatic and haemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injuries to vital organs. He further deposed that the penetrating injuries mentioned above along with corresponding internal injuries can cause the death of the person in the ordinary course. He identified the injuries Nos. 1 to 6, 11, 14, 16 to 19, 21, 25, 29, 31 to 44 as caused by sharp cutting object/weapon. Similarly Injury Nos. 15, 23, 24, 28 and 30 as caused by sharp and long cutting object. The injury Nos. 10, 20, 45, 46 and 47, 7 to 9, 27, 27 as caused by hard and blunt object. It is further deposed that injuries caused by sharp cutting object can be caused by sharp edge of Article No.6 Rambo knife. Similarly injury Nos. 15, 23, 24, 28 and 30 can be caused by Article No. 6. The witness was not cross examined on these aspects. It is therefore, clear that the prosecution have been able to establish that the death was homicidal.