LAXMAN PUNDLIK SUVARNAKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-53
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Decided on July 14,2017

Laxman Pundlik Suvarnakar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.K.SONAWANE,J. - (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.;


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