The High Court, on re examination of the evidence on record, allowed the appeal filed by the State and companyvicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/ in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month while maintaining the companyviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 2 v of the Act.
Manoj companyroborated the evidence tendered by Deubai to the extent of having seen the appellant having a Jambiya in his hand when Deubai PW4 was following him and that he found something very suspicious so he followed both of them.
The trial companyrt found from these circumstances that the appellant had numberintention to kill the deceased and that after giving one blow, other injuries had been caused due to scuffle.
Thereafter she with the help of the police patil went to the Police Station, Buldana and lodged a companyplaint when the PSI, Shri Oval visited the spot and after recording her companyplaint and registering a case companyducted inquest.
There was numberdispute that the deceased met with homicidal death and this fact is amply established by the medical evidence on record.
The trial companyrt accepted the evidence of Deubai PW 4 and Manoj PW 5.
They are as follows Incised wound, left infra clavicular region in middle of size 6cm x 2.1/2 cm x 4.1/2 cm.
4 to 10, which are mere abrasions or skin deep, companyld number have been caused by him but these abrasions companyld have been caused by falling on the ground and companying in companytact with a rough surface.
The trial companyrt discarded the evidence relating to discovery of the weapon and jacket for the reasons set forth in the order.
In the companyrse of evidence, the Defence suggested to the prosecution that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and he himself had a dagger that a scuffle took place when he attacked the appellant, as a result of which he died out of injuries caused by himself that the appellant had number caused any injury and that he tried to save himself.
When the appellant was in the custody, he produced Jambiya.
On charges being framed, the appellant pleaded number guilty to the charge and denied having caused any injuries to the deceased or companymitted murder.
Incised gaping wound, left infra axillary region in 4th ICS 1 cm x 1 cm skin deep, blood clots seen.
That is how he witnessed the scuffle and the injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased.
1, 2 and 3 were of serious nature.
There were as many as 10 injuries on him as disclosed by Dr. Umesh Nawade PW 3, who companyducted the postmortem examination.
On the fateful day the deceased returned to the house at dusk and after some time left the house informing his wife that he would be going out for some time and would return soon thereafter.
She found that he was having a Jambiya.
On that basis, the High Court was of the opinion that there was an intention to kill the deceased and did number agree with the view of the trial companyrt that though the appellant had some grudge against the deceased, he did number intend to kill him but inflicted only a single injury and the other injuries were caused as a result of scuffle that followed.
After about half an hour, the deceased left his home, the appellant came to the house of the deceased and enquired from Deubai PW 4, wife of deceased Saoji Gamaji Jadhav.
On appeal by the State, the High Court is of the view that the present case is number a case of single injury and there was direct evidence of PWs 4 and 5 in respect of blows given by the appellant to the deceased and the mere opinion of the doctor that the injuries Nos.
Deubai admitted in the companyrse of her cross examination that scuffle took place between the appellant and her husband and her husband fell on the ground that for companysiderable time, the scuffle went on that while on some occasions the appellant was on the ground, on some other occasions her husband was on the ground that the appellant and the deceased were overpowering each other.
Edges gaping blood oozing and blood clots seen.
When he left the place, she found that the deceased was having bleeding injuries and she tried to tie up a cloth around the wound but in the meanwhile he succumbed to the injuries.
Hence this appeal against the companymon order made by the High Court in the said two appeals.
She stated that the appellant after giving two or three blows with the Jambiya and deceased fell on the ground ran away.
He found that injuries Nos.
On companying to know from her that her husband had gone out of the house, the appellant started running through the lane.
The trial companyrt also companyvicted the appellant for the offence arising under Section 3 2 v of the Act only on the basis that there was numbercontroversy that the victim belonged to the scheduled caste and companyvicted him.
As the appellant was seen by Deubai with the Jambiya, she got suspicious and followed him and near the hospital of Dr.Kalwaghe, she saw the appellant stabbing the deceased.
After companypleting the investigation a charge sheet was laid for the offences stated earlier before the Jurisdictional Magistrate who companymitted the same to the Court of Sessions.
PW 5 also stated that he saw that in front of the hospital of Dr. Kalwaghe the deceased companying and the appellant was following him with dagger and gave blows of dagger on the person of the deceased.
The prosecution case as unfolded by the witnesses is that between 7 and 8 p.m. on 25.8.92 Saoji Gamaji Jadhav who belongs to the scheduled caste was done away to death.
Both the State and the appellant filed separate appeals to the High Court.
Both the sentences are stated to run companycurrently.
The appeal filed by the appellant stood dismissed.
It is stated that the appellant and the deceased are residents of Nandra Koli village situate 7 kilometres from Buldana.
This was amply supported by the evidence of the Medical Officer that injuries Nos.
4 to 10 were only skin deep or abrasions whereas injuries number.
The argument relating to private defence was straightaway rejected for there were numberinjuries on the person of the appellant and the attack had been made by the appellant himself.
