Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1984. Case: State of Maharashtra Vs Bhanudas Sommanna Sangolkar. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1984 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S. R. Borulkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor and For Respondent: Shirish Gupte, Adv. |
| Judges | V. Sahai, J. and Mrs. Ranjana Desai, J. |
| Issue | Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Sections 378, 161 |
| Citation | 1997 CriLJ 3205 |
| Judgement Date | February 24, 1997 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Sahai, J.
-
The Appellant, aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 26th August, 1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions case No. 16 of 1983, acquitting the Respondent for an offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and 201 r/w 34 I.P.C., has come up in appeal before us.
It is pertinent to point out that alongwith the Respondent, his two real brothers Jyoti Somanna Sangolkar and Hariba Somanna Sangolkar were also tried, but they have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment.
-
Briefly stated, the prosecution case runs as under:
Deceased Jaywant Appa Sangolkar was the cousin of the Respondent and the acquitted accused. He, the Respondent and the acquitted accused, resided in Sangolkar Vasti, which is situated at a distance of about 1/2 k.m. from village Khairav. The house of Jaywant Appa Sangolkar was adjacent to that of Respondent. At the time of the incident, Jaywant was residing in his house with his wife Kondabai (PW-11), the informant; his son - Appa (the second deceased); and some others. At a distance of about 400 feet from the Vasti was the temple of Lord Mahalingraya and people of the Vasti are said to have been visiting the temple; specially on Amavasya day. Geetram Kshirsagar (PW-12) was the pujari of the temple. He went there every morning and evening.
There was an enmical strain between Jaywant, Respondent and the acquitted accused. That was on account of the dispute over the boundary of their Court-yards; adjoining lands and alike matters. It is said that, about two years prior to Jaywant's murder, the Respondent and acquitted accused had encroached upon his land. It is also said that on last Diwali, there was a quarrel between the acquitted accused Jyoti Somanna Sangolkar and Jaywanta because the cattle of the former had trespassed in the land of the latter. Ever since then Jaywant on one hand and the Respondent and others on the other were not on talking terms. It is said that Jaywant had gone in the village requesting Yellappa Dhomre and Laxman Yedve to settle the disputes, but the Respondent and the acquitted accused did not let them settle the same.
The immediate motive for the crime is said to be that, a month prior to the murder of Jaywant, his goat was stolen. The Respondent and the acquitted accused had a feeling that they were being accused for the theft.
It is alleged that on 17-8-1982, which was a Amavasya day, at about 7 p.m., Geetram Kshirsagar PW-12 followed by Jaywant and his son Appa came to the temple. A little later, the Respondent also came there. It is said that near the temple was a Deepmal. Jaywant, after leaving his son Appa inside the temple, went to the Deepmal for pouring oil. At that time, it started raining. Consequently, Jaywant came inside the temple; took Appa and thereafter, followed by the Respondent left the temple. The evidence is that, while Jaywant, Appa and the Respondent were in the temple, one Krishna Kshirsagar (P.W. 14) also came to the temple. He is said to have followed Jaywant, Appa and the Respondent when they left the temple.
-
The evidence of Krishna Kshirsagar (P.W. 14) is that, since it was raining and wind was blowing, he was walking hurriedly flashing his torch. In torch-light he saw the Respondent assaulting Jaywant with an axe on the bandh. He also saw that the acquitted accused were standing by the side of bandh. Jaywant fell down on the ground as a consequence of the assault. His son Appa was with him. When he flashed his torch, the Respondent threatened him saying that he should not disclose the fact to anybody else and if he did so, he would suffer the same fate. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that, Appa's murder was not committed in his presence. On account of the warning given by the Respondent, Krishna Kshirsagar came to his house and did not move out for 3 days.
-
Meanwhile, when Jaywant and Appa did not return to the house, Kondabai, their wife and mother respectively, got worried. The evidence of Geetram Kshirsagar is that, while he was on his way to his house from the temple and was passing in front of Kondabai's house, she asked him about Jaywant and Appa. She told him that they had not returned. Geetram Kshirsagar told her that, just before it had started raining, both of them, followed by the Respondent, left the temple. Consequently, a frantic search was launched to trace out Jaywant and Appa. The next day a missing report was lodged...
To continue reading
Request your trial