LAWS(BOM)-1998-1-79

PANDHARINATH VISHNU KOLTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On January 08, 1998
Pandharinath Vishnu Kolte Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Pandharinath Kotle and deceased Vithal have been real brothers and they come from village Pisarve, Taluka Purandar, Dist. Pune. Their lands are adjoining with a common boundary in between. There used to be disputes and quarrels over the boundary between these two brothers and the members of their families. On 25th of May 1997, the petitioner and his son Anil went to plough the land with the help of tractor and at that time Vithal had gone to watch his field. After ploughing it was found that the petitioner and his son moving stones and throwing earth in the land of Vithal and, therefore, Vithal accosted them for that purpose. By that time, wife of Vithal had arrived there. Upon such objection being raised by the deceased, petitioner caught hold of the deceased and pushed him whereby he fell on the stomach. Thereafter petitioner picked up a stone weighing about 5 kgs. and hit a blow on the back of Vithal. His son Anil is alleged to have given fist blows on the stomach of Vithal. By that time son of the deceased, Rajendra arrived there and then Vithal was taken to Dr. Kolte and from there to Sasoon hospital, Pune. Thereafter, Rajendra lodged complaint in Jejuri police station. Petitioner came to be arrested on 26th May 1997 in connection with this offence and he had applied for bail to Sessions Court, Pune but his application came to be rejected.

(2.) I have heard Mrs. Agarwal for the petitioner and Mr. Behere, APP for the respondent - state.

(3.) THE first information lodged by Rajendra as well as the statement of wife of the deceased recorded during the course of investigation would go to show that the deceased fell on his stomach and thereafter the petitioner gave a blow with a stone on his back. The copy of the postmortem report shows certain other injuries including one on occipital part. So far as the first information and the statements of the witnesses are concerned, they do not supply material information as to the assailant or author of those injuries on occipital part.