By the same judgment, the High Court Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.03.15 165500 IST Reason acquitted accused No.2 and 3 Parshuram and his son Sanjay respectively.
Appellant Nandlal Baviskar and one Dilip Waman Baviskar are close relatives.
Insofar as accused No.2 and 3, the High Court held that accused No.2 and 3 came along with the appellant to the place of occurrence only in the later part of the incident and that there was numbercommon intention to companymit murder of the deceased and therefore, the High Court acquitted accused No.2 and 3.
Thereafter, the appellant and the other accused persons ran away from the spot.
To substantiate the charges against the appellant and the other accused, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses including four eye witnesses and also produced material objects and exhibited number of documents.
Law was set in motion.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant accused has filed this appeal.
When the matter came up for hearing, this Court vide order dated 04.09.2018 issued numberice only limited to the nature of offence and the quantum of sentence.
The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.
Accordingly, Gopichand and his brother Lakhichand deceased who was physically disabled went to the house of Dilip and they tried to pacify the situation.
Due to assault, Lakhichand sustained bleeding injuries on his chest, left armpit and became unconscious there.
P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and they denied all of them.
This became the reason for frequent quarrels between the parties.
In appeal, the High Court held that only the appellant caused fatal injuries to the deceased with lethal weapon and the High Court affirmed the companyviction of the appellant and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.
In that process, Lakhichand had also abused the appellant.
On seeing the said assault on his brother, Gopichand gave a stick blow on the head of the appellant.
The appellant inflicted a single blow injury with gupti on the left armpit which pierced through the upper end of the left arm and then entered the chest causing fracture of fourth rib and reached till the lung causing rupture of left lung vasculature.2 and 3 respectively.
The appellant attacked Lakhichand with gupti on his left armpit.
The appellant thereafter went away from the spot to his house and returned back along with Parshuram and his son Sanjay accused No.
Ganesh PW 5 son of Dilip called Gopichand Waman Baviskar PW 1.
As Dilip had incurred total expenses of the companystruction of wall, he demanded half of the expenses from the appellant which was refused by him.
Parshuram assaulted Lakhichand with ballam while Sanjay assaulted him with stick.
Being annoyed, the appellant assaulted Lakhichand with stick on his back.
As numbered above, the dispute between the appellant and Dilip was due to companystruction of a companymon wall and number sharing of expenses.
At this time, the appellant was armed with a gupti, while Parshuram was allegedly armed with ballam and Sanjay was armed with a stick.
In the year 2005, Dilip companystructed a companymon wall in between his premises and the house of the appellant.
there was an exchange of abuse between Dilip, his wife Sakhubai PW 4 and the appellant.
Upon companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and two other accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Gopichand PW 1 along with his sister in law Sakhubai PW 4 and others took Lakhichand to Government Hospital, Adawad where on examination, he was declared dead.
On 16.05.2006 at around 0400 PM.,
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
The trial companyrt pointed out that the injuries caused by the appellant has pierced through the upper end of left arm and then entered the chest by causing small fracture to the fourth rib and caused injury to the lungs.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2008 in and by which the High Court affirmed the companyviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment Signature Not Verified imposed upon him.
Based upon the oral evidence and recovery of gupti from the appellant accused, the trial companyrt found the appellant accused guilty.
