LAXMAN PUNDLIK SUVARNAKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Laxman Pundlik Suvarnakar
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction under sections 302, 323 of Indian Penal Code and resultant sentence of imprisonment
for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default R.I. for 2 months, and, R.I. for 6 months and to pay
fine of Rs.500/-, in default R.I. for 1 month; respectively, the appellant-accused Ishwar Baliram
Hude has filed appeal bearing No. 239 of 2013, whereas, the first informant Laxman and
prosecution/State both have preferred the appeals bearing No. 463 of 2013 and 664 of 2014 against
the judgment and order of acquittal of accused No. 2 to 5, under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 323
read with 149 of the IPC. These appeals emerge from one and the same judgment and order of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist. Latur in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2009, therefore, we
proceed to deal with these appeals together by this common judgment.
(2.) The scenario of the prosecution case culled out in brief is that, the ill-fated victim Shilavati was the daughter of first informant- Shri. Laxman Pundlik Suvarnkar residence of village Kawthal, Tq.
Deoni, Dist. Latur. The daughter victim Shilavati was the divorcee and residing with parents i.e. first
informant Laxman and his wife Vimalbai. The first informant Laxman and
appellant Ishwar Baliram Hude as well as Respondent- accused Rohidas, Nabi Jainoddin and
Shivdas all were familiar with each other and on inimical terms due to dispute of land Gut no. 164 of
village Walandi. According to first informant Laxman, he was the owner and in possession of
contentious land Gut no. 164 whereas, appellant-accused Ishwar, and respondent Rohidas were
claiming the title and occupation of land on the basis of document of registered sale deed. There
were litigation between them since the year 2005. The first informant Laxman also cast allegation
against appellant Ishwar of his involvement in money lending business. He had filed complaints
against appellant Ishwar and others for their illegal activities of money lending business.
(3.) It has been alleged that on 20/06/2008, the first informant Laxman, his wife Vimalbai and daughter Shilavati carried out the agricultural operation in the contentious land Gut No. 164 of village
Walandi. Thereafter, at about 9.00 p.m., the trio went to bed in the field. The victim Shilavati and
mother Vimalbai, both slept in front of the tin shed erected temporarily in the field. The first
informant Laxman went to sleep at some distance from daughter and wife, fearing attack on the part
of money lenders. However, in the wee hours of dawn at about 4.30 a.m., the first informant
Laxman heard the screams of daughter Shilavati. He immediately woke up and saw that the
appellant-accused Ishwar and respondents Rohidas, Nabi Jainoddin, Shivdas and Vishwanath
assaulted his daughter Shilavati with boulder, and on seeing him started running towards a
percolation tank located on the eastern side of the field. His wife Vimalbai
also awaken at that time. The first informant Laxman made endeavour to chase them but they all
pelted the stones towards him and inflicted injuries to his both legs, head etc. It has been asserted
that the assailants were intending to kill Laxman, but, they attacked victim Shilavati mistakenly
under the belief that first informant Laxman had slept there. The victim Shilavati received fatal
injuries on her head and face.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.