PRATAP NATHUJI DHIKKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 20.5.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Trial No. 119/2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ , in default, to suffer R.I. for one year.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : The accused was residing in village Nagepalli along with his mother Tarabai (deceased). Though the accused was married and he had two sons and one daughter, his wife and children were not residing with him and his wife left the house with the children and was residing at Sironcha. Tarabai had a daughter Shobha who was married and she was residing in village Aheri. Tarabai was working as Sweeper on daily wages at the powerhouse at Nagepalli. The accused was addicted to liquor. Earlier he was in service in the Zilla Parishad at Amravati. However, since last ten years he was not doing any work and he was residing at Nagepalli with his mother. His mother used to maintain herself as well as her son, i.e. the accused on her daily wages. The accused used to demand money from his mother for liquor and he used to quarrel with her, beat and harass his mother and threaten her on account of demand for money for liquor. On earlier occasion also, he had assaulted his mother which resulted in an injury to her head. Hence, Tarabai went and stayed with her daugher PW.1 Shobha at village Aheri for sometime. Thereafter, as she had a job in village Nagepalli, she came back to reside in village Nagepalli. About a month prior to the incident, the accused had threatened to kill his mother Tarabai, therefore, Tarabai lodged report against the accused with Aheri Police Station.

(3.) Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para no.1 above. Hence, this appeal.