- (1.) Bhaskar Chandar Londhe-original accused No. 1 has filed Cri. Appeal No. 66 of 2011 and Mahadeo Bhiku Chopade-original accused No. 2 has filed Cri. Appeal No. 289 of 2011. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- 1, Karad, Dist. Satara in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted and sentenced both the appellants as under:- The learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. As both the appeals are directed against the very same judgment and order, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Sanjay was the husband of PW 3 Vandana. Vandana was residing along with her husband and children in the house of her mother PW 7 Vithabai at Salshirambe, Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara. PW 13 Pralhad also resided near the house of PW 7 Vithabai. Bhaskar-Accused No. 1 was the uncle of Vandana. He also resided near the house of Vandana. Bhaskar was unmarried. Bhaskar always used to be in the company of accused No. 2 Mahadeo who is a eunuch. About 15 days prior to the incident, deceased Sanjay had told accused No. 1 not to be in the company of accused No. 2 who is a eunuch. Sanjay told Bhaskar to get married. Sanjay further told Bhaskar that Sanjay would keep Mahadeo with him and as to whether thereafter, Bhaskar would get married. At that time, both the accused i.e. Bhaskar & Mahadeo had beaten Sanjay. About 4-5 days prior to the incident, Sanjay had demanded money from accused No. 1 Bhaskar because Sanjay had constructed a wall of the house of accused No. 1 Bhaskar. At that time, dispute had taken place between Sanjay and Bhaskar. (b) The incident took place on 04.03.2007. At about 12 noon, Sanjay had his food and he was sleeping in the middle room of the house. At about 02.00 p.m. in the afternoon, accused No. 1 Bhaskar came with a sickle to the house of Vandana. At that time, accused No. 2 Mahadeo was with him. When Bhaskar and Mahadeo came to the house of Vandana, Vandana, her mother PW 7 Vithabai, sister of Vandana PW 5 Reshma and Vandana's neighbour. PW 6 Tanubai were sitting in the house of Vandana. Bhaskar asked, "Where is Sanjay" Where is Sanjay" Bhaskar also said that Sanjay was defaming him and who is Sanjay to tell him to get married. Bhaskar then said that he will not leave Sanjay alive. Bhaskar rushed towards Sanjay. PW 7 Vithabai went to rescue Sanjay and to stop the accused. At that time, Bhaskar gave a blow with sickle on Vithabai. Therefore, Vandana went to rescue Vithabai. Then accused No. 1 Bhaskar gave blow with sickle on the left hand of Vandana. Then accused No. 2 Mahadeo gave Vandana and Vithabai hand blows and kick blows. Bhaskar also gave blow with sickle on the finger and hand of Tanubai. Due to this, Tanubai's left finger was completely cut. At that time, PW 13 Pralhad who resided near the house of Vandana came to rescue them. Both the accused persons then entered into the second room where Sanjay was sleeping. Bhaskar then gave blow with sickle on the stomach of Sanjay. Sanjay died on the spot. PW 3 Vandana then lodged FIR. Thereafter, investigation commenced. (c) Both the accused were arrested on the very same day. During the course of investigation, blood stained sickle (Article 22) came to be recovered at the instance of accused No. 1 Bhaskar. In the meanwhile, the dead body of Sanjay was sent for postmortem. PW 14 Dr. Pawar conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sanjay. In the opinion of Dr. Pawar, the cause of death was hypovolemic shock due to fatal cardiac and lung injuries. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
(2.) Charge came to be framed against the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34, IPC for causing death of Sanjay, under Section 326 r/w 34 and 324 r/w 34, IPC for causing injuries to Vandana, Tanubai, Vithabai and Pralhad, under Section 452 r/w 34, IPC for entering into the house of Vandana, having made preparation to cause hurt and under Section 506 r/w 34, IPC for giving threats to the witnesses and the deceased. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their 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 appellants as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal.
(3.) We have heard the learned Advocates for the appellants and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellants have committed house trespass by entering the house of Vandana in order to assault Sanjay, assaulted Sanjay and during the assault, they caused injuries to the witnesses.;