Babasahed Apparao Patil vs State Of Maharashtra

Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.198 of 1987. These persons were Babasaheb Apparao Patil - Accused No.1, Tanaji Manikrao Patil - Accused No.2, Appasha Dharmarao Patil - Accused No.3 and Prakash Limbanna Koli - Accused No.4. The Trial Court convicted all the accused for the said offence and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, with default stipulation. All the convicts preferred an appeal to the High Court. Although accused No.2 and 4 expired during the pendency of the appeal, yet the High Court dealt with their appeals as well. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant herein and accused No.2 but acquitted the remaining two accused, giving them the benefit of doubt.

3. According to the prosecution in village Boramani, District Solapur, there are two rival parties. Manikrao Patil was the leader of one party and the deceased - Baburao Vibhute was the leader of the other party. Tanaji Manikrao Patil - 2 Accused No.2 is the son of Manikrao Patil. Babasaheb Apparao Patil-Accused No.1 and Appasha Dharmarao Patil

- Accused No.3 are cousin brothers of Tanaji. Prakash Limbanna Koli-Accused No.4 is not related to other three accused but was known to them. On 7th June, 1989, one Abhimanyu Rama Bhagare had assaulted the said Manikrao Patil, father of Accused No.2 by using a Sattur. Abhimanyu was a good friend of the deceased Baburao Vibhute. Manikrao suspected that assault on him by Abhimanyu had been instigated by the deceased Baburao and therefore, he held a grudge against him.

4. On 19th June, 1986, the deceased - Baburao Vibhute, Sidram Birajdar (PW-10) Sarpanch of village Boramani, Prakash Rajguri (PW-11), driver of the deceased and one Suresh Rokade left for Solapur by jeep because the deceased had some work there. On completion of the work, at around 3.00 p.m. they started the return journey. On their way, they stopped at hotel Khansaheb to take some snacks. But since vegetarian snacks were not available, 3 they procured beer from outside and had it in the hotel. At the hotel, Prakash (PW-11) saw Shivaji Rajguru (PW-26), who was in the service of the deceased and had owed some money to him. He, accordingly informed the deceased, who demanded money from Shivaji but on his failure to oblige him, he belaboured him and made him sit in the jeep to take him to his village. When the jeep came near the village of Shivaji, his wife (PW-19) stopped it. The deceased got down from the jeep and was talking with the wife of Shivaji. While the conversation was going on, another jeep came from the side of Solapur. All the four accused got down from the jeep. Accused No.1 was armed with a pistol; Accused No.2 got down wielding an instrument like jamiya (dagger); Accused No.3 came to the rear side of the jeep of the deceased and grabbed him from behind; Accused A-2 gave a dagger blow on his stomach. When the deceased fell down on the ground, Accused No.1 fired a bullet shot at his chest. On seeing the assault, Sidram (PW-10) ran away out of fear. At a nearby petrol pump, he boarded a truck and 4 reached Hyderabad. Prakash (PW-11) the driver of the jeep, also fled from the scene and on reaching Solapur, he went to the house of his uncle (PW-18) and narrated the entire incident to him.

5. On 19th June, 1986 itself, at about 9.10 p.m., a phone call was received by CPI Bhaskar Patil (PW-28) from an unknown person informing him about the murder of Baburao Vibhute. The said informant is stated to have disclosed that the murder had been committed by Babasaheb Patil - Accused No.1 and Tanaji Patil - Accused No. 2. PW-28, after making the entry in the station diary regarding the telephonic message, conveyed the information to PSI Annasaheb Patil (PW-33), attached to the Taluka police station within whose jurisdiction the murder had been committed. On receiving the information, the police sprung into action. At the place of occurrence, Panchnama of the scene of occurrence was prepared, the jeep and some articles alongwith the dead body were seized. The body of Baburao was sent for post mortem. At the civil hospital, 5 Dr. Kanki (PW-20) performed the post mortem and found as many as 15 injuries on the person of the deceased. The injuries included a fire arm injury over abdomen near left postal margin, four deep incised wounds over abdomen, four stab wounds over chest, one incised wound over left side at lumber region and exit wounds of pellets. Lungs, kidneys, liver, spleen were also injured. Doctor opined that these injuries were sufficient to cause death and the death was caused on account of shock and haemorrhage and due to injuries sustained by the deceased over abdomen, chest and to visceral organs. On completion of investigations, which included recording of confessional statements of Accused No.2 and Accused No.4, who also produced the weapons of offence (2 daggers and one country made pistol), chargesheet was filed against all the accused.

6. The accused abjured their guilt and accordingly, the trial was held. The prosecution examined as many as 33 witnesses to support its case. No evidence was produced in defence. Upon consideration of the evidence, as noted 6 above, the trial court convicted all the four accused for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Appellant's (Accused No.1) conviction having been confirmed by the High Court, he has come up before us in this appeal. The other convict - Accused No.2 expired during the pendency of his appeal in the High Court.

16.Thus, we are unable to agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court as well as the High Court have failed to appreciate properly the evidence on record. We are convinced that the conclusions of the courts below, that the appellant had committed the offence of murder of Baburao Vibhute, are supported by acceptable evidence. We do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

NOVEMBER 28, 2008.