STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION, LOHARA, DISTRICT OSMANABAD Vs. SATISH TRIMBAK RASAL
LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-146
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 05,2017

State Of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Lohara, District Osmanabad Appellant
VERSUS
Satish Trimbak Rasal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.M. Dhavale, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the State challenging the judgment dated 21.7.2001 passed in Sessions Case No.12/2001 by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad of acquittal of the four respondents prosecuted for committing murder of father of accused no.1 Satish and husband of accused no.2 Indubai.
(2.) The facts as per F.I.R. may be stated as follows : Deceased Trimbak aged around 60 years was handicapped due to Polio. He was resident of Lohara (Khurd). Accused no.1 Satish is his son, accused no.2 Indubai is his wife. It is claimed that since they were not maintaining him, he was residing at Lohara (Bk), District Osmanabad. Since two years prior to the incident, he had quarrels with accused nos.1 and 2. He was taking his meals and residing with third persons. He was demanding partition of his agricultural land. P.W.3 Vyankat Rasal is grandson of deceased Trimbak's mother's sister and he was his neighbour. P.W.3 Vyankat had seen quarrels and abusing to Trimbak by the accused nos.1 and 2 and he had intervened in the quarrel many a times. Since two months prior to the incident, Trimbak had gone to Lohara (Bk.) as his land dispute with wife and son was pending in the Court. On 28.4.2000 at 7.00 p.m., accused no.1 Satish and accused no.2 Indubai and her brother accused no.3 Vishwanath brought Trimbak from Lohara (Bk.) to Lohara (Khurd) in a jeep. Thereafter, P.W.3 Vyankat heard verbal exchange between them. They three had taken him to their house. Accused no.4 Kamlakar is maternal cousin of accused no.1. Accused nos.1 to 4 were moving in and out of the house. On 1.5.2000 at 3.30 p.m., P.W.3 Vyankat received a phone call from uncle of accused no.1's wife that Trimbak was dead. P.W.3 Vyankat visited the house of the deceased and found his dead body lying in the varandah of the house. There were bleeding injuries on back, hands, legs and on private parts and his baniyan and dhoti were stained with blood. There was ligature mark of strangulation on his neck. P.W.3 Vyankat accordingly submitted report stating that accused nos.1 to 4 by means of fist blows and stones and by twisting private parts of Trimbak killed him between 8.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. On the basis of report lodged at 21.15 hrs., crime was registered at C.R.No.20/2000 at Lohara police station and the same was investigated into by P.W. 7 P.S.I. Jadhav. P.S.I. Jadhav had received the information about homicidal death of Trimbak at about 4.30 to 5.00 p.m. He had gone to Lohara (Khurd) for verification and seen the dead body in the courtyard of the house. There were external injuries on the body including ligature mark on the neck. There were other injuries on wrist, back, legs and mainly to penis and scrotum. There was blood on the clothes and body and on one cloth 'Uparne'. There was one stick with blood stains and one cord lying near the dead body. P.S.I. Jadhav arranged to get photographs of the dead body. He prepared inquest panchnama (Exh.25) on the spot and recorded F.I.R. and forwarded the body for post mortem. During the investigation, he drew spot panchnama, seized the clothes of the deceased and the weapons stick and cord. He arrested all the accused on 1.5.2000 and recorded statements of material witnesses. He forwarded the seized articles to Chemical Analyst at Aurangabad. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad framed charge at Exh.13 against all the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. As discussed above, the case is based on last seen together and custodial death. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad acquitted all the accused. Hence this appeal.
(3.) Mr P.G. Borade, learned A.P.P. for the State has taken us through the evidence on record. He stated that there is convincing evidence as follows : (I) Accused nos.1 and 2 son and wife of the deceased were not maintaining him and were harassing him, abusing and assaulting him. Therefore, deceased Trimbak had gone to Lohara (Bk.) for residing. (II) On 28.4.2000 accused nos.1 to 3 went to Lohara (Bk.) in a jeep and brought Trimbak from Lohara (Bk.) to Lohara (Kd.). Deceased was crying while he was being brought to his house. It was witnessed by P.W.3 Vyankat Rasal, Sarpanch, P.W.5 Kisan Rasal. (III) On the fateful day, 1.5.2000, the deceased was found killed and his dead body was found in his house. Accused nos.1 and 2 have not given any explanation about the same though they were residing with him in the said house. The medical evidence clearly shows that it was a case of homicidal death. Thus, the learned trial Judge ought to have accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses and should have convicted the accused. In the alternative, he claimed that atleast accused nos.1 and 2 should have been convicted. (IV) There is also evidence of P.W.6 Allah Baksh that he has provided huge amount of Rs.1,21,000/- to the deceased for his maintenance and the deceased had executed deed in respect of his land in favour of him (Allah Baksh). Allah Baksh was having civil litigation with deceased and accused nos.1 and 2. The land of the deceased was in possession of accused nos.1 and 2. He has also seen accused nos.1 to 3 taking deceased from Lohara (Bk.) to Lohara (Kd.).;


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