Madhukar Dhondiba Hajare vs The State of Maharashtra

V.K. Tahilramani, J.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 165 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:

(a) Deceased Bhimrao was the son of P.W. 6 Bhau. Bhau is the first informant in the present case. Bhau had three sons. One of them was deceased Bhimrao. Bhau was residing with his sons and their wives at Dhangar Galli in Sangli. Deceased Bhimrao was having an affair with the wife of the appellant. At the time of Dasera in the year 2005, meeting of the villagers was called in village temple. At that time, Bhimrao was asked to lift "Bhandara" as to whether he had relations with wife of Madhukar (appellant). Bhimrao lifted "Bhandara" and admitted that he had relations with the wife of the appellant. In the month of November 2005, a quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased Bhimrao. At that time, the appellant told Bhimrao that he would kill him within two months.

(b) On 11.4.2006, P.W. 3 Mahesh had gone to the field of his employer Parisa for watering the crop. The next day morning at about 8.30 a.m., deceased Bhimrao came to his own field for taking fodder. Thereafter deceased Bhimrao came to the field of Parisa. Then Bhimrao, P.W. 4 Hajisab and P.W. 3 Mahesh sat chitchatting under Babhul tree in the field of Parisa. One Sharanappa came from Haripur to Sangli, hence, they called him and he also sat chitchatting with them under Babhul tree. Thereafter, the appellant came to the field of Parisa. He was armed with an axe. The appellant asked P.W. 4 Hajisab whether he could cut Babhul tree. Hajisab told him not to cut Babhul tree as the thorns of Babhul tree would get scattered in the field. However, the appellant insisted that he would cut the tree and told Hajisab that he could tell his employer Parisa or whoever he wanted. Then the appellant gave 2-3 blows on the tree with axe. Thereafter, the appellant inflicted blow with axe on the head of Bhimrao. The blow was inflicted with such force that the axe was embedded in the head of Bhimrao. P.W. 4 Hajisab tried to move the handle of the axe but he could not move it. Bhimrao died on the spot. Thereafter, the appellant went away towards Sangli. The witnesses made hue and cry due to which people gathered. P.W. 6 Bhau - the father of Bhimrao also reached the spot. P.W. 6 Bhau lodged F.I.R. Thereafter, investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal.

We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.

The conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e. P.W. 3 Mahesh and P.W. 4 Hajisab. P.W. 3 Mahesh has stated that he was in employment of Parisa and he had gone to the field for watering the crop. On the next day morning at 8.30 a.m., deceased Bhimrao came to his own field for taking fodder. Thereafter deceased Bhimrao came to the field of Parisa. Then Bhimrao, P.W. 4 Hajisab and Mahesh sat chitchatting under Babhul tree in the field of Parisa. One Sharanappa came from Haripur to Sangli, hence, they called him and he also sat chitchatting with them under Babhul tree. Thereafter, the appellant came to the field of Parisa. He was armed with an axe. The appellant asked P.W. 4 Hajisab whether he could cut Babhul tree. Hajisab told him not to cut Babhul tree as the thorns of Babhul tree would get scattered in the field. However, the appellant insisted that he would cut the tree and told Hajisab that he could tell his employer Parisa or whoever he wanted. Then the appellant gave 2-3 blows on the tree. Thereafter, the appellant inflicted blow with axe on the head of Bhimrao. Bhimrao fell down and died on the spot. Then the appellant went away on his cycle towards Sangli.

P.W. 4 Hajisab is the second eye witness. He has stated that he was in employment of Parisa. On the day of the incident, Bhimrao came to the field of Parisa. At that time, Hajisab was present in the field along with Mahesh (P.W. 3). They all sat under Babhul tree. At that time, Sharanappa came on bicycle from Haripur side. Then all of them sat together under Babhul tree. At that time, the appellant came there with an axe. The appellant told Hajisab that he would cut the tree. Hajisab told him not to cut the tree otherwise the thorns would be scattered in the field. However, the appellant insisted that he would cut the tree and told Hajisab that he could tell his employer Parisa or whoever he wanted. Then the appellant gave 2-3 blows on the tree. Thereafter, the appellant inflicted one blow on the head of Bhimrao. Bhimrao fell down. Hajisab tried to move the handle of the axe but he could not move the same. Then they all made hue and cry. Meanwhile the appellant went towards Sangli side on bicycle. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of both eye witnesses so as to cause us to disbelieve their evidence. We find that their testimony inspires implicit confidence, hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same.

Dr. Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident occurred on account of grave and sudden provocation. He placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 5 Pandurang and P.W. 6 Bhau to support his contention. Bhau was the father of deceased Bhimrao. Bhau has stated that deceased Bhimrao was his son. A dispute was going on between the appellant and Bhimrao because the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of the appellant. At the time of Dasera, a meeting was called in the temple of village. Bhimrao was asked to lift "Bhandara". Bhimrao lifted "Bhandara" and admitted that he was having an affair with the wife of the appellant.

The evidence of P.W. 5 Pandurang also shows that deceased Bhimrao was having illicit relations with the wife of the appellant. To find out the truth, a meeting of their community was called. Pandurang was the president of that community. The meeting was called in the temple. Forty representatives of forty houses sat in the meeting. In the meeting, deceased Bhimrao finally lifted "Bhandara" and admitted that he was having illicit relations with the wife of the appellant. Thereafter, the matter was settled. Thereafter, nothing happened. It is pertinent to note that this meeting took place during the time of Dasera in the year 2005 which is clear from the evidence of P.W. 6 Bhau. However, the evidence of Bhau further shows that in the month of Kartik i.e. in the month of November, a quarrel took place between the appellant and deceased Bhimrao in which the appellant told the deceased that he would finish him within two months. This incident occurred in the month of November 2005 and the present incident occurred on 12.4.2006. On the day of the incident, there was no cause for any grave and sudden provocation to the appellant nor there was any sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased on the day of the incident. Thus, the appellant cannot be given benefit of either Exception 1 or Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC which deal with grave and sudden provocation and sudden fight.

The evidence of two eye witnesses is consistent with the medical evidence. P.W. 7 Dr. Koli conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Bhimrao. On external examination, Dr. Koli found the following injuries:-

(1) Axe in situ on skull vertical at mid parieto occipital region. Blade of axe measuring 14 c.m. x 8 c.m. Incised wound at mid-parieto occipital region vertical, measuring 12 c.m. x 1 c.m. x brain deep.

According to Dr. Koli, the above injury is ante mortem.

On internal examination, Dr. Koli found the following injuries:-

1) Injury under scalp measuring 12 c.m. x 1 c.m. brain deep at mid parietal occipital region;

2) Fracture of skull bone at mid-parietal occipital region from fonto parietal suture line extending upto 2 c.m. below the parietal occipital suture line on occipital bone 14 c.m. x 1 c.m.

Brain. 1] Dura is ruptured vertically at region of mid parietal bone 12 c.m. x 2 c.m.

2.] Incised laceration of right and left lobe of brain in mid parietal occipital region 12 c.m. x 2 c.m. blood and clots are present.

In the opinion of Dr. Koli, the probable cause of death was shock due to cranio cerebral injury. According to Dr. Koli, the injury sustained by the deceased could be caused by axe "Article 7" and injury was sufficient to cause instant death. The appellant gave blow with axe on the head of deceased Bhimrao with such force that when P.W. 4 Hajisab tried to move the handle of the axe, he could not move it. The axe was embedded in the head of the deceased. Thus, we find that the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses are totally consistent with the prosecution case.

On going through the record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.