STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DNYANESHWAR HARIBABU KULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above confirmation case has been filed by the state of Maharashtra seeking confirmation of death penalty imposed upon the Accused dnyaneshwar Haribhau Kulal by the learned sessions Judge, Satara, by his judgment and order dated 18th November, 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the indian Penal Code. Over and above, the accused is also convicted for two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default six months R. I. for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian penal Code. As provided under Section 366 of the Cr. P. C. the proceedings have been submitted to this Court for confirmation of the death penalty. The Appellant/accused in the above criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2006 has challenged the above judgment and order dated 18th november, 2006 convicting him and sentencing him to death.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that p. W. 7- Tanaji, the complainant is the resident of Kulal Vasti, Taradgaon, Taluka Phaltan, district - Satara and his father deceased dhondiram was residing with him. They formed a joint family consisting of his brother Genba (P. W. 5) , their mother, their wives and children. Deceased Dhondiram had a cousin brother by name Haribhau who expired in 1972 and the present Accused is the son of Haribhau. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased dhondiram used to go to Satoba God situate at talewadi, Taluka Maan, and that the Accused dnyaneshwar was under the impression that deceased Dhondiram used black magic due to which his father Haribhau expired. There used to be quarrels between them on many occasions and for about two years prior to the incident, on 3. 9. 2004 Genba (P. W. 5) gave a missing report of Dhondiram, thereafter on the basis of fir given by complainant Tanaji (P. W. 7) , criminal case bearing No. 64/2004 for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian penal Code was registered against the Accused-Dnyaneshwar. It is the case of the prosecution that Somnath Javale (P. W. 12) who was working as A. P. I. at Lonand at the relevant time visited the spot alongwith the photographer and the dead body of the deceased was identified by the complainant Tanaji and others to be that of dhondiram. Thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem report by the Investigating officer. The clothes of the deceased were seized under the panchnama. Thereafter on 27. 10. 2004 on an information being received that there was a skull and other articles lying in the field of jotibacha Inam, the Investigating Officer visited the said spot and prepared the inquest of the skull. Thereafter the skull was sent to the anatomy department of B. J. Medical College, pune, and the said medical College had reported that the skull was that of a male person. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12. 4. 2005 the absconded accused was arrested, and when he was in the police custody he gave a memorandum , and on that basis the sickle and his clothes were seized. Statements of different witnesses were recorded. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser for analysis, the further investigation was carried out, and therafter, the Investigation Officer after coming to the conclusion that there was a prima-facie case against the Accused, he filed a charge-sheet in the Court of J. M. F. C. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried with a defence that of total denial.

(3.) The prosecution appears to have examined in all 12 witnesses consisting of panchas (P. W. 1, 2 and 4) , Complainant (P. W. 7) , his brother (P. W. 5) , villagers (P. W. 3 and 11) , dashrath (P. W. 6) before whom the accused made an extra judicial confession and eyewitness, doctors (P. W. 8 and 9) circle officer who prepared the map (P. W. 10) and the investigating officer (P. W. 12). The Accused appears to have admitted the documents at exhibits 7 to 15 and other documents before the trial Court, such as spot panchanama, inquest panchanamas, recovery panchanamas under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, complaint, missing report and C. A. Certificates.