Judgment:
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.)
1. Heard. We have appointed Shri Arjun S. Pawar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. He has taken us to the judgment and order of the Trial Court and the notes of evidence and other documentary evidence which is brought on record.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that the Appellant-Accused was suspecting his wife's chastity and used to harass her from time to time. She, therefore, came to her matrimonial house and her father had permitted the accused-Appellant and his wife to reside in one room of the house. According to the prosecution case, on 25.2.2005, when the wife of the accused went to sleep in the evening, the accused tried to strangulate her and she, therefore, rescued herself from the clutches of her husband and went to the house of neibour â Mahadu Ghodwinde. She called the wife of Mahadu Ghodwinde and one more lady and asked them to persuade the accused to behave properly and not to suspect her chastity. According to the prosecution case, thereafter, she went to sleep in the room of her sister-in-law -Reshma i.e. the wife of her brother. However, on the next day, when her son had gone to the tobacco shop to bring tobacco for his mother, the accused assaulted him with a wooden log. When the brother's wife intervened, he also assaulted her with the wooden log. Thereafter, the father-in-law of the accused intervened and the accused gave one blow of the wooden log on the head of the father-in-law, as a result of which, he fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, the Appellant assaulted his wife and gave a blow of wooden log on the right shoulder and two blows on her left leg. Thereafter, 4-5 villagers came there viz. Govind Rawate, Sitaram Thakre, Sudam Thakre and Shantaram Thakare. When Govind Rawate tried to persuade the accused, he gave two blows of wooden log on his head. Thereafter all other villagers overpowered the accused and took him to the police station. Govind Rawate had taken to the hospital where he declared dead.
3. The Investigating Officer had recorded a complaint, investigated the case and filed a chargesheet. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offences punishable under section 302, 304, 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- and, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He was sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to suffer further R.I. for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment of a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. We have gone through the evidences of the eye witnesses viz. PW-1 Prema Dattatraya Jadhav -wife of the Appellant, Reshma Ramesh Jadhav- Sister-in-law of the Appellant, who was also hit by wooden log by the Appellant, PW-3- Sunil Kathod Patil-neighbour of the Appellant, who was examined as an eye witness, PW-4-Sunanda Sadanand Ghodwinde- who was also examined as an eye witness, PW- 5-Dattatraya Mango Patil- who was an eye witness, PW-6-Sudam Kashinath Patil â who was also an eye witness, PW-7-Jayendra Govind Gawit- who was a pancha witness , PW-9 is the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of the PW-1 and PW-11 is the doctor, who performed the postmortem of the father of the PW-1 deceased Chokha Kathod Jadhav, PW-12 the doctor, who examined the injured witnesses.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has taken us to the judgment and order of the Trial Court and notes of evidences. He submitted that all the eye witnesses are interested witnesses and, therefore, it was difficult to rely on their testimonies. He submitted that the incident had happened on the spur of the moment and the accused did not have any intention to cause death of the two persons who died in the said incident. He submitted that the accused had given one blow to the father-in-law and two blows to Govind. He submitted that the Appellant had acted in a fit of rage and sudden provocation on account of earlier incident when he suspected that his wife having affair with the veterinary doctor, who had visited the house of the neighbour- Mahadu Ghodwinde where his wife was working. It was, therefore, submitted that the said conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code may be set aside and accused may be convicted for the offence punishable under section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the Appellant is in jail since the date of his arrest and, therefore, his sentence may be altered to the sentence which he has already undergone.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State submitted that that there are five eye witnesses to the said incident and the Appellant had mercilessly killed the two persons on account of a trivial incident which had happened on the earlier date. He submitted that the testimonies of these witnesses are corroborated with the medical evidence.
7. After going through the rival submissions made by both the counsel, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted. There is no dispute over the cause of death of these two persons viz. Chokha Jadhav and Gonvind is homicidal. The postmortem notes clearly indicates the cause of death of both the persons was due to heavy blunt impact of assault and all the injuries were sufficient to cause death of a human being in ordinary course and the said injuries are possible by a wooden log. So far as the prosecution case of assault is concerned, it has been drawn from the testimonies of PW-1 and 2 and all the witnesses, who had clearly given graphic details about the incident and the assault by the Appellant. It has been established that the Appellant used to suspect the chastity of his wife PW-1 and as a result, they had shifted to her father's house, who was kind enough to give one room to the Appellant. However, in spite of that he still continued to suspect the chastity of his wife and she had given details of the incident which had taken place on 25.2.2005 when she had gone to work in the house of Mahadu Ghodwinde, the dog had bite the cow of Mahadue Ghodwinde, hence, he called the veterinary doctor and the accused had seen the veterinary doctor going to the house of neighbour. He, therefore, suspected that his wife had affair with the said veterinary doctor and because of the said incident, she had went to sleep to her brother's residence and in the morning when she had asked her son Sameer to fetch tobacco powder for her, the Appellant accosted his son and first assaulted him with a wooden log and thereafter his sister-in-law Reshma and his wife PW-1 with the same wooden log and, thereafter, he assaulted the deceased Chokha Jadhav, who was his father-in-law, on his head with the same wooden log and as a result of which he fell down and died. When 4-5 villagers tried to stop him, he assaulted Govind and gave two blows with that wooden log. Govind later on succumbed to the injuries and died in the hospital. This version given by the PW-2 has been corroborated with the version of the eye witnesses.
8. In our view, the Trial Court has fully justified in giving the reasons that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and had convicted the Appellant for the offences punishable under section 302, 304, 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. In our view, no case made out for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is confirmed. Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.