Case Note & Summary
The present criminal appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the judgment and order dated 15th July, 2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the trial court convicted the appellant Ananda s/o Parasram Panewar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 28th August, 2011, the eve of Pola festival, the deceased Shivaji, along with Sudam Jadhav and Pandit Kapse, went to Chikala Tanda to consume liquor at the house of Santosh Chavan. The accused was already present there. A quarrel ensued between the accused and Sudam over a monetary transaction, in which the deceased intervened. The accused then threatened to kill the deceased and took him by the neck outside the house. Thereafter, all four proceeded towards their village; Pandit slept on the ottau of Mahadev temple, Sudam went home, leaving the deceased alone with the accused. The next morning, the informant Kondiba (father of the deceased) found the dead body of his son Shivaji lying in a soybean field of Madhukar Chavan. The body had no shirt, head was smashed, and there were three blood-stained stones nearby. The police registered an FIR, conducted inquest and spot panchnama, and sent the body for postmortem. The autopsy surgeon, PW9 Dr. Ujwala Dongare, found multiple lacerated wounds and fractures on the skull, and opined that death was due to shock from fracture of skull. She also opined that the injuries could be caused by stones and were sufficient to cause death. The viscera was preserved and chemical analysis revealed ethyl alcohol. The appellant was arrested and, during investigation, made certain disclosures and recoveries, including his clothes allegedly blood-stained and the deceased's shirt from a pond. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The trial court, relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the postmortem report and the circumstances, convicted the appellant.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.282 OF 2013
