AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dated 06.10.2005 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, the appellant has approached this Court.
The prosecution story as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus:--
"Deceased Sheela was wife of the accused. One Atmaram Gobru Chavan, Police Patil of village Sarkini, lodged a report on 26.10.2004 at Mahan Outpost stating therein that on the said date at around 1.30 hours the accused had come to his house and told him that accused has assaulted his wife Sheela by means of sickle as she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. The Police Patil with the help of others took Sheela for medical treatment. However, she succumbed to her injuries on way to the hospital. An first information report came to be registered at Police Station Pinjar bearing Crime No. 72 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshitakli. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the same came to be committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Akola."
Charge came to be framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge passed the order of conviction and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.
From the perusal of the post mortem report as well as the evidence of PW5 Dr. Ashwinikumar, we find that no interference is warranted with the finding that the death of the deceased is homicidal.
That leaves us with the question as to whether the appellant can be said to be the author of the crime.
PW1 Ranjana is the daughter of the deceased and the accused. She states in her evidence that on the night of 25.10.2004 at around 8 p.m., she had slept with her mother Sheela. She states that her father had slept with her brother Sunil. At around 9 p.m. her uncle came to call her for fetching water. Accordingly both her mother and she fetched water and then they slept. While she was asleep, she heard screaming of her mother and she woke up. She saw that her father was assaulting her mother by means of sickle. Thereafter she went to call her uncle Dayaram who resides one house away from her house. Her uncle came and snatched the sickle from the hand of her father.
The version of PW1 is fully corroborated by PW2 Dayaram. He states that on the night of 25th at around 9 p.m., he called Sheela for fetching water as the tap water had started running. After fetching water, he slept in his house. At around 1 a.m. in the midnight, Ranjana and Sunil came to his house. They were shouting and knocking the door, as their father was assaulting their mother. Thereafter he raised the shouts and went to the house of Sheela. He saw that she was lying down and the accused was assaulting her by means of sickle. He saw Chintaman while giving two sickle blows on Sheela. At the time of third blow, he caught hold of the hand and sickle which Chintaman was holding.
It could thus be seen that PW1 Ranjana and PW2 Dayaram though they are closely related to the deceased, have fully supported the prosecution version. They have no reason as to why they should lie against the accused. Not only that but PW3 Atmaram-Police Patil also supported the prosecution version. He has stated that the accused told him that he had assaulted his wife Sheela by means of sickle as she refused to have sex.
In view of the reliable, cogent and trustworthy testimony of PW1 Ranjana, PW2 Dayaram and the corroboration by PW3 Atmaram, we do not find that any interference is warranted with the findings that it is the appellant who is the author of the crime in question. It appears that the defence was taken that the deceased was to assault the appellant and as such while exercising the right of private defence, he has assaulted the deceased. In this respect it is necessary to refer to the injuries sustained by the deceased. The post mortem report reveals that the following 21 external injuries are sustained by the deceased:--
"1. Incised wound on forehead, 1/2 cm above middle of right eye below 1 x 1/2 cm x bone deep.
I.W. On right ear lobule, obliquely placed, 1.1/2 X 1/2 cm x through and through.
I.W. On middle of left ear pinna, horizontally placed, 2.1/2 X 1/2 cm x through and through.
I.W. On scalp, in left temporal region, around upper end of left ear pinna 7 x 2 cm x bone deep, C-shaped with concavity facing downwards.
I.W. On anterior chest wall, in mid line, vertically placed, at level of 3rd rib. 2.1/2 x 1/2 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep.
Stab wound on anterior chest wall, in left 3rd intercoastae space, in mid clavicular line, both angles sharp, clean cut, both margins regular, clean cut, size 3 cm x 1/4 cm x thoracic cavity deep, directed posteriorly downwards and medially, placed horizonto-slightly obliquely.
Stab wound on anterior abdominal wall, 1/2 cm below right coastal cartilage, in mid clavicular line, both angles sharp, clean cut, both margins regular, clean cut, 2.1/2 cm x 1/4 cm x abdominal cavity deep, directed posteriorly and upwards, placed horizontally.
V-shaped, I.W. On back, 4 cm right to mid line at level of 11th and 12th thoracic vertebrae, with angle of V laterally and flapping on medial border, forming a triangle, length of each limb is 7 cm, wound is muscle deep.
I.W. On left shoulder, superior aspect - 2 x 1/4 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep.
Four incised wounds on left shoulder, posterior aspect 1.1/2 x 1/2 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep to 6 x 2 cm x muscle deep.
C-shaped I.W. On right arm, lateral aspect at junction of upper and middle thirds, horizontally placed, with concavity facing upwards, horizonto slightly obliquely placed, 8 x 3 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep.
I.W. On right forearm, lateral aspect, in middle horizontally placed, 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep.
I.W. On right hand, medial aspect, over 5th Metacarpal, 7 x 2 cm x bone deep, shaft of 5th Metacarpal on medical aspect is exposed, cutted soft tissue adherent by few soft tissue tags.
2 I.W. 1/2 cm apart, one below other, on left hand, lateral aspect, over 1st Metacarpal, both horizontally placed, 3 x 1 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep and 2.1/2 x 1 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep.
I.W. On left index fingers, lateral aspect, over first interphalangeal joint, 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep.
3 I.W. On each over left middle ring and middle fingers, on palmer aspect, over 1st phalanges and first inter phalangeal joints, each of 1.1/2 x 1 cm x muscle deep, al directed upwards.
Abraded contusion on right thigh, lateral aspect in upper 3rd, 1.1/2 x 1.1/2 cm.
Abraded contusion on right leg, anterior aspect in middle 3rd, obliquely placed, 4 x 1 cm.
Abraded contusion on right leg, lateral aspect, in middle 3rd, 5 cm right/behind injury No. 18, horizontally placed- 2.1/2 x 1.1/2 cm.
I.W. On left buttock, in lower- outer quadrant, horizontally placed, 4 x 1.1/2 cm x muscle deep.
Abraded contusion on left knee, anterior aspect, 2 cm x 2 cm."
Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, even if for a moment it is accepted that the appellant was exercising the right of private defence, the appellant did not have intention of doing more harm than was necessary but for the purpose of such defence, causing such a large number of injuries makes the intention of the appellant explicit.
In that view of the matter, we do not find that any interference is warranted in the present appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the appellant are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.