GANESH NAMDEO VARAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani convicted the accused/appellant in Sessions Case No. 101/1996 dated 20th January, 1997 for offence under Section 304, Part-II of IPC, directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. The same is under challenge at the instance of accused/appellant.

(2.) The incident, trivial in nature, has taken place on 9.2.1996 between the accused and his brothers and father. They had controversies on the partition of landed property. Due to such scuffle the accused thrashed his 2 1/2 years old daughter - Pappy against stone, in which she succumbed to injuries. However, the accused made a show that it was his brother and father, who assaulted the daughter in the quarrel, as the throw aimed at Accused. Gangaram hit his daughter - Pappy and succumbed to death. With these allegations, the accused lodged a report dated 9.2.1996, which gave rise to offence, vide C.R.No. 32/1996 under Section 302 read 34 of I.P.C. against his father, brother. During investigation, the Investigating Officer found that it was not the father or brother of the accused, who hurled stone and Pappy expired, but it was the accused, who smashed the infant against a stone in a fit of anger out of his annoyance with his father and brother. The wheels of investigation, consequently were centered in this direction. Spot panchanama was drawn (admitted) (Exh.14); Inquest on the dead body was drawn (admitted) (Exh. 13). Post mortem on the dead body was carried (admitted) (Exh.16). It is thus not in dispute that the death of Pappy was homicidal. Since the family members were involved as eyewitnesses, police officer thought it better to record statements of the witness - Rangnath (P.W.1) and Balasaheb (P.W.2) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The desire of Accused to confess was given effect through the J.M.F.C. Mr.S.K.Deshpande (P.W.4). The seized articles were analyzed by the office of Chemical Analyser.

(3.) The prosecution witness (P.W.1) Rangnath Rohidas Shisode; P.W.2 - Balasaheb Namdeo Warad; P.W.3 - Parubai Venkati Panchal did not support the prosecution. Consequently, a miserable situation was surfacing as in spite of death of Pappy, admission of spot and details therein, the situation was in lurch.