VIJAY RAMCHANDRA DIWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has challenged the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.138 of 2001. The accused who was 17 years of age at the time he committed the offence has been convicted and sentenced under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused and his mother had a grievance against the deceased since he was allotted a house in the Gharkul scheme. On 15.9.2000, the deceased returned home from work as a labourer. At about 8 pm, the accused went to the house of the deceased and called out to him. The deceased went out of the house. There was a heated exchange of words between them. The accused whipped out a sword which he had hidden behind him and struck the deceased forcefully on the forehead. The deceased fell to the ground with bleeding injuries. The wife of the deceased raised an alarm by shouting that the accused had given her husband a blow on the forehead. The accused ran away from the spot. The victim was taken to Cottage hospital, Karad and thereafter was referred to another hospital. He succumbed to the injuries sustained by him at about 10 pm. An FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased against the accused. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The accused was arrested at about 12 noon on 16.9.2000. He was charged for having committed the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After the charge was framed, the trial was committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) The prosecution has relied on 8 witnesses to establish its case against the accused. PW3, the wife of the deceased is an eye witness to the incident. She has deposed about the grudge borne by the accused against the deceased, since he was allotted a house under the Gharkul scheme. The accused was related to the deceased, being the son of the stepsister of the deceased. This witness has spoken about a quarrel her husband had with the mother of the accused regarding sanctioning of houses under the Gharkul scheme. In fact, the mother of the accused, Sanjivani, had lodged a complaint against the deceased with the Gram Panchayat of the village. This witness has then stated that the deceased was lying down after a hard day s work as a labourer on 15.9.2000. At around 8 pm, the accused called out to the deceased. The deceased went out of the house to the site of the house sanctioned under the Gharkul scheme. This site was near the her residence according to PW3. She heard the words "Diwar Diwar" and she went out of the house. She found her husband and the accused quarrelling before she could call the Sarpanch of the Village to intervene in the quarrel, the accused had whipped out a sword and struck the deceased. This witness has seen the accused strike a blow with the sword on the forehead of her husband. The deceased fell to the ground. The accused ran away towards the railway tracks, holding the sword in his hand. PW3 immediately shouted and alerted others around that the accused had beaten her husband. The victim lay in a pool of blood due to the bleeding injuries sustained by him. Many persons from the village gathered around the spot after hearing her cries. The witness has stated in his examination in chief that she saw the incident in the light of the electric bulb. She has also stated that it was a full moon night and thus she was able to see the accused who had struck the deceased a blow with a sword. However, in the cross-examination this witness has admitted that there was no electricity supply on that day. However, the witness has stated that there was sufficient light for her to see the accused. This witness therefore, has categorically stated in her evidence that she saw the accused strike a blow on the forehead of her husband, the deceased. This blow was struck with a sword. After she raised a hue and cry, the accused fled from the scene of offence. Her evidence is cogent and believable. The cross-examination has not elicited any contradictions or discrepancies in the testimony of PW3. PW4 is the son of the deceased and PW3. He was 10 years old when his deposition was recorded in Court. He has stated that he left the house with his sister to purchase chocolates after 8 pm. The shop where he purchased the chocolates was at a distance of 10 or 15 minutes from his house. While proceeding to the shop the accused had enquired of him regarding the whereabouts of his father. This witness has seen the accused run out of his house with a sword in his hand. When he went in, he found his mother shouting while his father was silent. However, not much reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness since he has admitted that he was tutored by his mother to answer the questions in a particular manner.