STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SAHEBRAO SHIVRAM JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 27-6-1985, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No.162 of 1984, acquitting the respondent, for an offence under section 307 IPC. In short, the prosecution case is as under :-

(2.) ON 31-5-1984, at about 8 p. m. the victim Walmik Pawar PW 2 was returning from the threshing floor where he had gone to confine the hens and on the way sat down to answer the call of nature. At that time, the respondent came and inflicted three sickle blows on his person. Thereafter, he ran away. When the victim Walmik did not reach home, his father Shamrao Pawar PW 1, the informant, got worried and the same night went to search the victim. ON the way near the field, he saw him lying on the ground. He was unconscious. ON regaining consciousness, he told the informant that the respondent had assaulted him with sickle.

(3.) THE case was investigated in the usual manner and thereafter the respondent was put up for trial, an for offence under section 307 IPC, to which charge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Out of them, the victim Walmiki Pawar was the solitary eye witness. THE defence of the respondent was that the victim had first assaulted him with a log and in self-defence, he assaulted him. THE learned trial Judge did not believe the ocular account of the victim, accepted the defence of the respondent and gave the respondent the benefit of sections 79 and 100 IPC, and accordingly acquitted him. Hence, this appeal.