PANDURANG RUKMANNA PATIL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-116
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 30,2016

Pandurang Rukmanna Patil Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. - (1.) The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - I.d. to suffer R.I. for 3 months by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1996 vide Judgment and Order dated 28th June, 1996. Hence, this appeal.
(2.) Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows : (i) The appellant herein happens to be the paternal uncle of Sambhaji Shivaji Patil(P.W.10). That the father of Sambhaji had met homicidal death. The accused persons who had caused the homicidal death of Shivaji Patil were convicted. (ii) Sambhaji was residing with his mother Anusaya in the common household which was shared by the accused/appellant. There was notional partition between both the families. They were residing separately in the same house. Entry to the house was common. (iii) Sambhaji has filed Civil Suit against the appellant seeking partition i.e. half share in the property. At the time of filing of the suit, sugarcane crop was standing in the land. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Civil Court, Sambhaji was entitled to half share of the crop and the appellant was entitled to the remainder half. (iv) It is the case of the prosecution that on 6/5/1995 at about 8.30 p.m. when Sambhaji was standing in front of the house supervising the transport of the sugarcane to the sugar factory, the accused/appellant had abused him, as he was annoyed on account of Sambhaji being entitled to the half share, although he had cultivated the said crop. There was verbal altercation between the uncle and the nephew. It is alleged that the appellant was armed with sickle and he assaulted Sambhaji on his neck with the sickle. Then Sambhaji attempted to rescue himself. He was followed by the appellant who gave subsequent blow on his left leg. When Sambhaji fell down, the appellant had allegedly assaulted him with the same sickle on his abdomen. (v) That the mother of Sambhaji i.e. Anusaya (P.W.11) had appeared on the scene of the offence. The appellant had allegedly assaulted Anusaya (P.W.11) with the sickle on her head, shoulder and back. (vi) They both had fallen on the ground. Both were left unattended for almost two hours and thereafter, at the instance of Dr. Shinde, police vehicle was called and injured were shifted to Belgaon Hospital. They were taking treatment at K.L.E. Hospital, Belgaon for almost 3 to 3 1/2 months. The sarpanch of the village Shri Vithal Hari Patil (P.W. 4) lodged report at the police station. On the basis of his report, Crime No. 20 of 1995 was registered at Chandgad Police Station against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 307, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (vii) Upon completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed on 21/11/1995. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 27 of 1996. (viii) The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The case rests upon the evidence of P.W. 10, P.W.11 and P.W.5.
(3.) P.W. 10 Sambhaji Shivaji Patil has deposed before the Court that civil suit was filed by him seeking share in the property. The Court by the interim order had granted half share to P.W. 10. He has deposed before the Court the manner in which the incident has occurred. He has reiterated the abuse hurled at him by the appellant. He has specifically stated that the appellant herein had assaulted him on neck, left leg and abdomen. As far as the incident in question is concerned, witness has not been shattered in the cross -examination. He has admitted in the cross -examination that the suit is still pending and interim orders were passed in his favour. It is reiterated in the cross -examination that after the first assault, he ran to a distance of 4 to 5 ft. and the accused had assaulted him on the leg from behind by bending down and when he further ran for 10 to 15 ft., the appellant had assaulted him on his abdomen. It is elicited in the cross -examination that on the date of incident the sugarcane from the land of the accused was being sent to the sugar factory and not the sugar cane from the land of P.W. 10. However, it is clear that as far as the actual assault is concerned, the witness has not been shattered in any manner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.