VINOD RAMESH PIMPLE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 18/12/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No.6 of 2013 thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Section 304 Part II, 323 and 33 of the Indian Penal Code . For the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence of one month. For the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months apart from imposition of fine of Rs.200/- and default sentence of ten days simple imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year apart from imposition of fine of Rs.300/- and default sentence of fifteen days simple imprisonment. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial Court. The appellant/accused has been held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of his father-in-law Ganpat Pawar. He has been held guilty for causing grievous hurt to his wife P.W.No.4 Sunita Pimple, whereas he has been held guilty of causing hurt to his brother-in-law P.W.No.1 Prakash Pawar.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused are thus :

(3.) I heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/accused. She has vehemently argued that there is delay of about seven days in examination of injured P.W.No.4 Sunita Pimple. The Doctor from Noble Hospital is not examined by the prosecution. The medical case papers of the Noble Hospital are not disclosing subdural hematoma or fracture of skull. Though CT scan was conducted at the Nobel Hospital, the same is suppressed by the prosecution. There was no external injury on head of the deceased. Even, P.W.No.2 Dr.Sonal Baravkar has not spoken about the fracture injury or contusion and, therefore, the findings in the postmortem report are doubtful. It is further argued that seizure of the wooden log allegedly took place on 22/08/2012 and as such, this belated seizure is not useful to the prosecution. The learned Advocate further argued that though the distance between Hospital of P.W.No.2 Dr.Sonal Baravkar and the Noble Hospital at Pune was very short, the deceased was shown to be admitted at the Noble Hospital at about 5.00 or 6.00 p.m. It is further argued that there is delay of about more than ten hours in conducting the postmortem examination and, therefore, the prosecution case is doubtful. The learned Advocate further argued that the learned trial Court has not appropriately sentenced the appellant/accused.