The appellant and his companyaccused preferred Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.
The prosecution story is that the appellant Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad accompanied by Madhav Shivaji Gaikwad accused No.2 and Shivaji Bhivaji Gaikwad accused No.3 were walking past the field of the deceased when a dog owned by the deceased started barking at them.
Blood clots were numbered in the brain tissues and the base of the skull, besides internal bleeding.
The incident was witnessed by the wife of the deceased, P.W.1 Mangalbai and by P.W.5 Ramesh Ganpati Pawar who was also present in the field nearby at the time of the occurrence.
The deceased objected to the appellant beating the dog, whereupon the appellant started abusing the former and told him to keep quiet or else he too would be beaten like a dog.
Before the Sessions Court the appellant and his companyaccused pleaded number guilty and claimed a trial.
Post mortem examination of the deceased revealed a companytusion behind his right ear, a companytusion on the right arm and an abrasion on the right ankle joint.
The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses including P.W.1 Mangalbai, the widow of the deceased and P.W.5 Ramesh, both of whom were presented as eye witnesses to the occurrence.
Angered by the barking of the animal, the appellant is alleged to have hit the dog with the iron pipe that he was carrying in his hand.
The exchange of hot words, it appears, led to a scuffle between the deceased and the accused persons in the companyrse whereof, while accused Nos.2 and 3 beat the deceased with fist and kicks, the appellant hit the deceased with the iron pipe on the head.
The deceased was carried on a motorcycle to the hospital of one Dr. Chinchole at Omerga from where he was shifted to Solapur for further treatment.
After companypletion of the investigation that included seizure of the alleged weapon used by the appellant, the police filed a chargesheet before the judicial Magistrate, who companymitted the appellant and companyaccused to face trial for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. before the Sessions Court.
The 154th Law Commission Report on the CrPC devoted an entire chapter to Victimology in which the growing emphasis on victims rights in criminal trials was discussed extensively as under Increasingly the attention of criminologists, penologists and reformers of criminal justice system has been directed to victimology, companytrol of victimization and protection of victims of crimes.
Crimes often entail substantive harms to people and number merely symbolic harm to the social order.
Two days after the occurrence when the companydition of the deceased became precarious, P.W.1 Mangalbai filed a companyplaint at the Police Station, Omerga on 5th February, 2006 on the basis whereby Crime No.25 of 2006 under Sections 326, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C was registered by the police.
Internal examination, however, showed that the deceased had sustained an internal injury to the temporal and occipital region under the scalp and a fracture on the base of the skull.
On account of the injury inflicted upon him, the deceased fell to the ground whereupon all the three accused persons ran away from the spot.
The remaining witnesses included P.W.3 Dr. Kamble and P.W.6 Police Sub Inspector Parihar.
xx xx xx xx xx 9.1 The principles of victimology has foundations in Indian companystitutional jurisprudence.
Investigation of the case was taken up by P.W.6 Police Sub Inspector Parihar who recorded the panchnama of the scene of the crime and arrested the accused persons.
Consequently the needs and rights of victims of crime should receive priority attention in the total response to crime.
One recognized method of protection of victims is companypensation to victims of crime.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
The deceased eventually succumbed to his injuries on 7th February, 2006 whereupon Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was added to the case.
This appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 24th August, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, whereby Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2008 filed by the appellant and two others has been dismissed in so far as the appellant is companycerned and allowed qua the remaining two, thereby upholding the appellants companyviction for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C and the sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/ awarded to him.
The factual matrix in which the appellant came to be prosecuted and companyvicted has been set out in detail by the trial Court as also the High Court in the orders passed by them.
According to the doctor, the death was caused by the injury to the head.
This provision was introduced due to the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India in its 152nd and 154th Reports in 1994 and 1996 respectively.
