(1.) The appellant-original accused No. 2 along with six other accused persons was tried in Sessions Case Trial No. 45 of 1984 for having committed the murder of one Ramesh Haribhau Himane popularly known as "Ramesh Patil" resident of village Bhari, Distt. Yavatmal in the evening of January 6, 1984. The appellant and original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas remaining three accused persons were charged for offences punishable under Section 201, 202 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. Udey Shankar Dixit - original accused No. 1, however, was murdered during the pendency of the trial hence it abated against him. The trial Court by its judgment and order 8th July, 1986, acquitted all the accused persons except the appellant who was convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The appellants appeal to the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, came to be dismissed on 13-2-1988. It is against this judgment and order of High Court, the appellant on obtaining special leave has filed this appeal.
(2.) The facts of the prosecution case lie in a very narrow compass:- Ramesh Patil (since deceased) was allotted 15 acres of land in village Bhari situated at a distance of about 6 kms. from Yavatmal on Yavatmal-Pandhar Kawada road and was doing cultivation. Haribhau (PW 2) is the father of Ramesh Patil who was then residing in his own house at Yavatmal. Ramesh Patil used to go to village Bhari everyday at about 11.00 a. m. and would return at about 5.30 p. m.
(3.) It is alleged by the prosecution that in the year 1978, Ramesh Patil along with six other persons of whom some are prosecution witnesses in the present case, was prosecuted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for having attempted to commit the murder of Udeyshankar Dixit (A-1). However, on the conclusion of the said trial, Ramesh Patil and other accused persons were acquitted. Since then, the two rival groups were on inimical terms and, therefore, Ramesh Patil apprehended danger to his life from Udeyshankar Dixit and the appellant.