Briefly stated the case as put forth by the prosecution is 8 days prior to the date of the occurrence, the deceased sent Deubai P. W. 12 , an Adivasi married woman, whom he was keeping as his mistress for the last four years to get him a bottle of Liquor from the appellant who carried on the illicit trade of preparation and sale of Ghasta companyntry liquor .
So far as Motiram is companycerned, his testimony has number been believed by the High Court, and we think rightly so.
He also denied that he administered Ghasta to Padmakar as alleged by the prosecution or that Padmakar had companye to his residence alongwith Deubai.
deep with the result that he got drowned and died.
On companypletion of the investigation, the appellant was proceeded against and tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shortly after the companymencement of the show, Padmakar told Deubai that they would number see the play and would go back to their house.
16 rushed to the scene of the occurrence and after identifying the dead body to be of his elder brother Padmakar, went to the police station and lodged F.I.R. Exh.
On getting the bottle of liquor Deubai gave one rupee numbere as price of the liquor to the appellant but instead of accepting the same, the appellant offered her a five rupee currency numbere and tried to induce her to leave Padmakar and stay with him.
At 8.30 p.m. on November 30, 1968 Padmakar took Deubai with him to see a play which was being staged in Trimbak.
On hearing this news, Padmakar deceaseds younger brother Dattatraya PW.
He, however, admitted that he left Trimbak on the morning of December 1, 1968 but added that this was for the purpose of joining the Padyatra of Vishveshwar.
All this happened in the presence of the appellants son Motiram P W. 4 , a lad of about 11 years of age, While Deubai lay asleep and Padmakar was in a state of inebriation and unconsciousness due to excessive companysumption of Ghasta, the appellant and his son Motiram went away to see the drama.
After a short while, Deubai wanted to leave for her house but Padmakar did number allow her to do so and asked her to lie down and go to sleep.
Dr. H H. Mohsini, who performed the autopsy opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia caused by drowning It was after a vigorous search that the police was able to arrest the appellant on March 8, 1969.
Much against her wish, Deubai left the theatre in the companypany of Padmakar with a view to return to the latters house.
In his statement under Section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant denied the charge that he caused the death of Padmakar by throwing him in the Moti Talao.
The appellant thereupon lifted Padmakar and took him to a nearby lavatory from where he shouted to Motiram to get him a Chaddar bed sheet from the house.
On reaching the house, the appellant called out Padmakar and tried to rouse him up by shaking him but the latter did number respond as he was heavily under the influence of liquor.
While Deubai thus lay asleep, Padmakar and the appellant companytinued taking Ghasta.
After seeing the drama, the appellant and Motiram returned to their house.
On the way, Padmakar took Deubai to the one room tenement of the appellant where the appellant entertained both Padmakar and Deubai with Ghasta and himself also joined them by taking the same.
In this report it was inter alia stated by Dattatraya that the appellant had caused the death of Padmakar as he wanted Deubai to stay permanently with him.
On the same morning, Padmakars dead body was found floating in Moti Talao tank .
On the morning of the following day i e. December 1, 1968, the appellant left his house telling his son, Motiram, that he was going to Nasik.
Thereupon Ramchandra Puranik, A.S.I. P W. 22 repaired to the tank, took charge of the dead body, held an inquest and stated investigating the cause of the death of Padmakar.
Accordingly, Motiram took a Chaddar and handed to over to the appellant who used it for wrapping up Padmakar,carried him towards Moti Talao and threw him in the tank which was about 21 ft.
He further stated that he had gone to see a drama on the night in question and knew numberhing about the death of Padmakar.
Jaswant Singh, J. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Judgment and Order dated April 1/2 of 1971 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay companyfirming the companyviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life passed thereunder for causing the death of one Padmakar, Kotwal of Trimbak aged about 35 years by drowning him in Moti Talao tank on the night intervening 30th November and 1st December, 1968, when the latter was heavily drunk.
The appellant further pleaded that the Trimbak police had falsely implicated him as he had submitted written companyplaints against it.
To bring home the charge to the appellant, the prosecution seeks however to rely on the evidence of three of its other witnessess, manely, Motiram P.W. 4 , Deubai P.W. 12 and Ramdas P.W. 19 .
Deubai, however, spurned the offer and apprised Padmakar of the incident whereupon the latter who was standing at a short distance from the appellants house rushed to the house and remonstrated with and scolded the appellant.
