ARJUN NAGU SOKATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon each of the appellants being convicted for the offence punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year ; for the offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years; for offence under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life; for offence punishable punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month; for offence under section 323 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, by judgment dated 9th December, 1985 in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1985 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, the appellants named above have filed this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that the deceased Namdeo Jayram Takcore was resident of village Itvi, Taluka Lonar, District Buldana. Land admeasuring 12 acres was allotted to him by the Government and he was in possession thereof. He created a house in the said land and was residing there with his two wives, Sarubai (P.W. 2) and Dagadabai (P.W. 9), four sons namely, Rama (P.W. 8), Datta (P.W. 7), Laxman (P.W. 4) and Jayram and three daughters namely, Emnibai, Radhabai and Satibai, just adjacent to the houses was the cattle-shed of the deceased Namdeo. Only Rama (P.W. 8) and Matibai the son and daughter respectively of the deceased Namdeo were married. The talks about the marriage of his son Datta (P.W. 7) with Rukhmini, the daughter of the appellant No. 4 Punjaji, were finalised about a year back. The appellants Nos. 1 to 6 and one Mahadu (the absconding accused) are also residents of the same village and are closely related to each other. Datta (P. W. 7) was then serving in the flour mill owned by one Prakash Bora. Rukhmini used to visit the flour mill for the purpose of grinding grains and both Datta (P.W. 7) and Rukhmini used to talk with each other. This was not appreciated by the appellant No. 4 Punjaji. He hence decided not to give his daughter Rukhmini in marriage to Datta (P.W. 7). It is also the prosecution case that some persons from Naygaon had come to the house of the appellant No. 4 to see the daughter Rukhmini. They did not approve of the girl. Where upon the appellant No. 4 Punjaji and his nephew Mahadu (the absconding accused) suspected that the deceased Namdeo and his son Datta must have played some mischief and that was the cause for not approving the girl by the persons who had come from Naygaon. The relations between the appellants and Mahadu (the absconding accused) on one side and the deceased Namdeo and his son Datta (P.W. 7) on the other had considerably strained.

(3.) It is alleged by the prosecution that soon thereafter the deceased Namdeo was assaulted by the appellant No. 4 Punjaji by dragging him out of the house of one Maroti Teli where he had gone with his son Datta (P.W. 7) for purchasing Jowar and was beaten by a shoe. Both deceased Namdeo and Datta (P.W. 7) left that place and proceeded towards the flour mill for grinding flour. There they were also threatened by the appellant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 that they would be killed. Even on the next day, Mahadu threatened Datta in the field of one Dharamchand Bora while he was taking his bullocks to the river. The threat was that he and his father the deceased Namdeo would be killed. After returning home Datta (P.W. 7) narrated the incident to his parents and brothers and a report (Exhibit 36) was lodged at the Police Station Lonar.