The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 24.08.2010, companyvicted respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each, in default to make payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment for two months.
On the basis of the companyplaint, Osmanabad Rural Police Station registered the case as Crime No.36 of 2007 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against respondent Nos.1 2 herein, who are numbere other than maternal uncle of deceased and his son for causing death of the deceased with stick and Khil yoke pin .
The High Court allowed the said appeal, set aside the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence dated 24.08.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, and acquitted respondent Nos.1 2 of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
After companypletion of the investigation by the Police Inspector of Osmanabad Police Station PW 19 , final report was submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, the accused respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No.333 of 2010 before the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.
On 21.04.2007, a companyplaint was lodged by the appellant at Osmanabad Rural Police Station stating that the companyplainant, his wife and other relatives had gone to attend the marriage of his granddaughter Rupabai, while his younger son Dattatreya remained at home.
After attending the marriage, when they came back, one Balu Shekha Solawar told the companyplainant that accused Sajjan and his son Kakasaheb had killed Dattatreya in the field of Sanjay Sambhaji Jethithor.
The companyplainant immediately rushed towards the spot and found the dead body of Dattatreya lying on the field.
It appears that appellant had purchased 3 acres of land from his father in law father of respondent No.1 about 20 years before the date of occurrence.
The villagers who were present on the spot told the companyplainant that accused killed Dattatreya.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows Parties herein are close relatives as respondent No.1 is the brother in law of the appellant herein his sister having married to the appellant and respondent No.2 is the son of respondent No.1.
On account of the said transaction, respondent No.1 was number happy, which is stated to be the alleged enmity between the parties.
Appellant had two sons, namely, Gorakh and Dattatreya.
Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was companymitted to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad.
Non examination of weapon recovered from the place of incident by the Chemical Analyzer also made the case doubtful as per the opinion of the High Court.
Twenty witnesses were examined on prosecution side and five witnesses were examined on defence side.
Hence, the present appeal by the father of the deceased who is the companyplainant in this case.
We have heard Mr. Rajat Kapoor, learned companynsel appearing for the companyplainant appellant herein and Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, learned companynsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 2 herein, at length.
