Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1651 (BOM)

PRAKASH DEVU AADAGA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2014-07-28

A.S.GADKARI, V.K.TAHILRAMANI

body2014
Judgment : V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J. The Appellant/original accused has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 18th January 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2010. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : Deceased Devu was the husband of P.W.2 - Reshmi. Devu had three children viz. Balu, Ankush and the Appellant Prakash, from another wife. Prakash, Balu and Ankush were the stepsons of Reshmi. Devu owned a plot of land. There was a dispute in relation to the said plot in between Devu and the Appellant - Prakash. Partition of the said plot took place on 22nd June 2010, yet the Appellant was not happy. On the night of 22nd June 2010, Devu and his wife Reshmi went to sleep on the ota of the house. Ankush i.e. the stepson of Reshmi, wife of Ankush and mother-in-law of Ankush went to sleep inside the house. At about 1 a.m. the Appellant came near Reshmi and Devu. Light was burning on the ota where Reshmi and her husband Devu were sleeping. Prakash gave an axe blow on the left side of neck of Devu and ran away. Reshmi shouted, whereupon P.W.1 - Ankush and his wife came out. Blood was oozing from the neck of Devu. He died on the spot. Reshmi then went to the police station and lodged F.I.R. Exhibit 9. Thereafter investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the Appellant is 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. 4. We have heard the learned advocate for the Appellant and the learned APP for the State. The defence of the Appellant is 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. 4. We have heard the learned advocate for the Appellant and the learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered their submissions, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion that the Appellant assaulted his father Devu with an axe on the neck and caused his death. 5. The conviction is mainly founded on the evidence of P.W.2 - Reshmi. Reshmi is an eyewitness to the incident. She was the wife of deceased Devu and she was the stepmother of the Appellant as well as P.W.1 - Ankush and their brother Balu. Reshmi has stated that her husband owned a plot of land. There was dispute regarding this plot in between her husband Devu and the Appellant - Prakash. Partition of the plot took place on 22nd June 2010 in the presence of villagers. However, even thereafter Prakash was giving trouble to them. As Prakash was giving trouble to them, they went to sleep in the house of Ankush. Ankush was residing with his father-in-law. On that night, they all went to sleep at the house of Ankush. Reshmi and her husband Devu went to sleep on the ota. P.W.1 - Ankush, his wife and mother-in-law went to sleep inside the house. At about 1 a.m. Prakash came near Reshmi and Devu where they were sleeping on the ota. There was light bulb on the ota. Reshmi saw Prakash giving an axe blow on the left side of the neck of Devu. Thereafter Prakash ran away. Reshmi shouted, whereupon P.W.1 - Ankush i.e. the brother of the Appellant came out. Blood was oozing from the neck of Devu. He expired on the spot. Thus, the evidence of Reshmi shows that the Appellant assaulted his father Devu with an axe on the neck which led to the death of Devu. 6. The evidence of P.W.2 - Reshmi is supported to some extent by the evidence of P.W.1 - Ankush. Ankush was the son of deceased Devu and brother of the Appellant. Ankush was the stepson of P.W.2 - Reshmi. 6. The evidence of P.W.2 - Reshmi is supported to some extent by the evidence of P.W.1 - Ankush. Ankush was the son of deceased Devu and brother of the Appellant. Ankush was the stepson of P.W.2 - Reshmi. Ankush has stated that there was dispute in between the Appellant and his father Devu in relation to a plot of land. His father called villagers for partitioning the plot. The partition took place on 22nd June 2010. However, the Appellant was still not happy. Ankush has stated that he resided at the house of his mother-in-law. Therefore his parents came to the house of his mother-in-law. At night time his parents i.e. Devu and P.W.2 - Reshmi went to sleep on the ota. Ankush, his wife and his mother-in-law went to sleep inside the house. At about 1 a.m. Ankush heard his stepmother P.W.2 - Reshmi shouting. Ankush opened the door and came out. He saw injury on the neck of his father and blood was oozing from the said injury. Ankush has stated that his stepmother Reshmi told him that the Appellant gave an axe blow on the neck of his father. Ankush saw that his father was dead. His stepmother Reshmi then went to the police station and lodged F.I.R. 7. The motive for the Appellant to commit the murder of Devu has been brought on record by both P.W.1 - Ankush as well as P.W.2 - Reshmi. P.W.1 - Ankush who was the brother of the Appellant and son of the deceased has stated that his father Devu had a plot. There was dispute in between the Appellant and his father in relation to the plot. His father called villagers in relation to partition of the said plot. The partition took place on 22nd June 2010. Despite partition the Appellant was not happy. It is pertinent to note that the incident has taken place on the night between 22nd June 2010 and 23rd June 2010. P.W.2 - Rehsmi has also stated that her husband Devu had a plot. There was dispute in relation to the plot in between her husband Devu and the Appellant - Prakash. Partition of the plot took place in the presence of villagers. Even thereafter Prakash was giving trouble to them. P.W.2 - Rehsmi has also stated that her husband Devu had a plot. There was dispute in relation to the plot in between her husband Devu and the Appellant - Prakash. Partition of the plot took place in the presence of villagers. Even thereafter Prakash was giving trouble to them. As Prakash was giving trouble, Reshmi and her husband Devu went to sleep at the house of Ankush, who was the son of Devu. Ankush was residing with his father-in-law. P.W.2 - Reshmi and her husband Devu went to sleep on the ota and P.W.1 - Ankush, his wife and mother-in-law went to sleep inside the house. Reshmi has stated that the incident occurred thereafter. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 - Ankush and P.W.2 - Reshmi shows that there was dispute in between the Appellant and the deceased who was his father in relation to plot of land. Though the plot was partitioned on 22nd June 2010, the Appellant was still not happy and he started giving trouble to Devu. On account of this instead of sleeping in their own house, Reshmi and Devu went to sleep at the house of Ankush. This shows the level of trouble that the Appellant gave to the deceased just prior to the incident. The incident occurred a few hours thereafter. Thus the evidence of P.W.1 - Ankush and P.W.2 Reshmi brings out the motive for the Appellant to commit the crime. 8. It is the prosecution case that the Appellant assaulted his father Devu with an axe on the neck and caused his death. This is corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.7 Dr. Barde performed the postmortem on the dead body of Devu. On the external examination, he found the following injuries : "i) deep cut wound on throat extending from right mandibular angle to middle of neck (upto Adams apple) 11 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm. ii) There was injury to larynx and trachea on right side. According to Dr. Barde cause of death was hemorrhage shock due to cut wound on major vessels of neck leading to cardio respiratory failure. In the opinion of Dr. Barde this injury is possible by heavy sharp edged weapon like axe Article 4 before the Court and the injury was sufficient to cause the death. 9. According to Dr. Barde cause of death was hemorrhage shock due to cut wound on major vessels of neck leading to cardio respiratory failure. In the opinion of Dr. Barde this injury is possible by heavy sharp edged weapon like axe Article 4 before the Court and the injury was sufficient to cause the death. 9. Thus on going through the record we find that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the murder of his father Devu by assaulting him with an axe on the neck. Thus, we find no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. 10. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Ms. Rohini Dandekar, who is on the High Court Legal Services Committee and who was appointed to represent the Appellant in this appeal. We found that she had meticulously prepared the matter and she has very ably argued the Appeal. We quantify total legal fees to be paid to her in this appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs. 5000/-.