LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, October 6, 2018

It is not the case of the appellant that he had suffered injuries in any other manner leading to the presence of blood. The recovery was at his instance. The conduct of the appellant in absconding till he was arrested, and abstaining during the funeral rites of his father, was completely contrary to normal human conduct, and is therefore considered an additional incriminating factor against the appellant.

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.114 OF 2012
BASAVARAJ alias BASAVANNAPPA
PARMESHWAR BANGARGIR ....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 302,
I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment on the charge of
killing his own father.
2.  The occurrence is stated to have taken place in the
night   of   01.12.2003.     The   police   report   was   lodged   next
morning by PW­2 Ratanchand, another son of the deceased.
The   appellant   was   stated   to   be   a   wayward,   addicted   to
alcohol, and nursed a grudge against his father with regard
to his claim to a share in the lands of the deceased.  There is
1
no eye witness to the occurrence and the conviction is based
on circumstantial evidence.
3. PW­2   stated   that   while   he   was   at   the   shop,   the
appellant came at about 9.00 p.m. and asked for a torch light
which was given to him by the witness.   The deceased had
gone to the agricultural fields in the night and did not return
till next morning.  The appellant was also seen going towards
the fields that night and did not return home.   The police
report was lodged by PW­2 the next morning.  The appellant
was absconding.  He was ultimately arrested on 17.03.2004.
On information furnished by the appellant, his blood stained
clothes,   confirmed   in   the   FSL   report   Exhibit   41,   were
recovered from the Someshwar Milk Dairy belonging to his
friend   PW­6   Mahadeo   Pailwan.     PW­8,   who   owned   the
adjacent agricultural field, was declared hostile.  Nonetheless
his   admission,   elicited   during   cross­examination,   being
admissible in evidence, testified the presence of the appellant
proximate in time to the incident.  The witness had seen the
appellant   in   the   fields   with   an   axe.     The   postmortem
conducted by PW­3 Dr. S.M. Vaidya confirmed death due to
2
cardio–respiratory failure caused by obligenic and neurogenic
shock due to multiple, deep incised wounds over the scalp,
face and neck.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
conviction is based on surmises and conjectures in absence
of   any   cogent   and   convincing   evidence.     The   chain   of
circumstances   cannot   be   said   to   have   been   conclusively
established.  There was no motive for the appellant to kill his
own father.  Suspicion no matter how strong could not take
the place of proof.  No blood has been found on the axe.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the State also.
6. The   High   Court   has   rightly   held   that   motive   stood
established because of the grudge that the appellant nursed
against his father with regard to agricultural lands.   The
evidence of PW­2 and PW­8 cumulatively established that the
appellant   had   gone   to   the   agricultural   fields   where   the
deceased had gone at night.  The lands of PW­8 were adjacent
to   that   of   the   deceased.     The   evidence   of   the   witness
conclusively establishes the presence of the appellant in the
3
agricultural fields.   No explanation has been offered by the
appellant with regard to the presence of blood on his clothes.
It   is   not   the   case   of   the   appellant   that   he   had   suffered
injuries in any other manner leading to the presence of blood.
The   recovery   was   at   his   instance.     The   conduct   of   the
appellant in absconding till he was arrested, and abstaining
during the funeral rites of his father, was completely contrary
to normal human conduct, and is therefore considered an
additional incriminating factor against the appellant.
7. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the
case, we see no reason to interfere with the conviction of the
appellant.  The appeal is dismissed.
…………...................J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
…………...................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
…………...................J.
4
[K.M. JOSEPH]
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 01, 2018.
5