SOMA BALAJI MOHURLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is challenging his conviction for the offences under section 304 and 323 of I. P. C. for which he has been sentenced to suffer R. I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer S. I. for one month and R. I. for six months respectively, by the Ad-hoc Sessions Judge-1, Chandrapur in sessions Case No. 106/2007 by the judgment dated 29. 4. 2008.

(2.) THE appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 302, 307, 201 and 202 of the I. P. C. for allegedly committing murder of his father Balaji Mohurle and also for attempting to commit murder of his mother Smt. Girjabai. He has also been alleged to have committed the offence of misleading the investigating authorities by giving false information that deceased had fallen due to consuming liquor and thereby suffered relevant fatal injuries. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that the appellant resides adjoining to the house of complainant his mother girjabai who was living with her husband deceased Balaji. Deceased and the complainant Girjabai are old persons, aged about 70 to 60 years. It is alleged that the appellant used to demand the house in which they were residing and he was insisting for recording the said house in his name and as the complainant and her deceased husband used to refuse, there used to be hot exchange of words often, so also quarrels. On 23. 6. 2007, complainant girjabai and deceased Balaji had returned to the house after attending marriage of grandson [i. e. daughters son]. They had taken their meals and they were about to go to bed. It was about 6. 00 to 7. 00 p. m. . It is alleged that appellant kicked the door, entered into the room (house) and abused them filthily. He assaulted deceased Balaji and complainant Girjabai by kick and fist blows. It is alleged that deceased Balaji then said that he would kill both these persons. Thereafter, the appellant left the complainant and rushed on the person of deceased Balaji and started beating him with kicks and fist. he lifted him and fell him down. Deceased became unconscious. It is alleged that appellant had urinated on the mouth of the deceased and stood on his body. It is also the contention of the prosecution that at that time one mala Gampallawar had came to rescue and request to leave the deceased, but appellant did not pay any heed. So he went away. Thereafter the nephew of appellant Ramchandra and Dadaji also tried to pacify the appellant, but in vain. It is alleged that as the appellant was once accused of murder, the villagers were afraid of and they did not intervene. Deceased was left there. In the morning the complainant had been to Sarpanch -Sudarshan of the village. She narrated the incident to him. Thereafter auto rickshaw was brought and deceased was taken to hospital at Gondpipri. Thereafter he was referred to hospital at Chandrapur and then to medical College, Nagpur. However, he died on 26. 6. 2007. Thereafter telegraphic message was given to the police station, so also report by the complainant. On that, the offence was registered. The Investigating Officer, Sukhdeo Jadhao P. I. conducted the investigation. It is alleged that in the incident complainant Girjabai had also suffered some injuries, she was also referred to the medical Officer for examination and treatment. During investigation, spot panchnama was prepared in presence of panchas. Some articles were seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded. so also postmortem report was received. After the necessary investigation, the charge sheet against the appellant was filed.

(3.) CHARGE against the appellant was framed by learned Ad-hoc additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur for the offence u s/ 302 for causing death of the deceased, under 307 Cr. P. C. for trying to commit murder of complainant Girjabai, for the offence under section 201 and 202 for misleading investigating officer as it was reported by the appellant that the deceased had fallen due to consumption of liquor and died. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the same. His defence is that of total denial. Specific defence which he has raised during his statement under section 313 of cr. P. C. is that deceased had fallen on the platform of the house, there is wooden door and drainage on the stone, there are stones also in the courtyard. Deceased Balaji slipped and fell down. As he was caught in the courtyard steps, he cleaned him and took him in the house, later on took him in the hospital in the morning. He had borrowed money for the treatment of his father, when he was taken to Chandrapur and then to Nagpur. he had incurred expenses for car False case is filed against him.