Channapa Advyappa Ambi vs The State Of Maharashtra
2004 Latest Caselaw 1055 Bom

JUDGMENT

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. A son killed his own father. Therefore, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant-accused has appealed against the said order of conviction.

2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj held that the appellant had committed murder of his father Advyappa (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") on 26th May, 1999, at about 6.00 a.m. in front of their house at Ambi Vasahat at village Hitni, Taluka Gadhinglaj, and therefore, charged him under Section 302 of IPC and, after due trial, imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. No defence witness is examined. There are three eye-witnesses to the unfortunate incident in question. They are, PW-2, Sonabai Virupaksh Ambi, PW-5, Ujwala Subhash Kunte and PW-10 Vrupaksh Annappa Ambi. The other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution including the mother of the accused, PW-6, Dundvva Advyappa Ambi, PW-4, Channapa Dundappa Khandale saw the accused standing with a scythe near the dead body of the deceased, PW-11, Dr. Mallkarjun Virupakshappa Athani conducted the post mortem on 26th May, 1999, and recorded in all, 17 ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased and further proved that those injuries could be caused by the weapon in question. The cumulative effect of those injuries caused the death of the deceased. PW-12, Rajaram Rangarao Patil PSI of Kavala Naka Police Chowkie arrested the accused and reported the matter to the Gadhinglaj Police Station and supported the prosecution's case. PW-3, Bhimappa Babu Killedar, the Kotwal village of Hitni reported the incident to the police, after noting the place of the incident in question. PW-8, Shamsher Mohammad Khalip is a Panch witness to the Inquest Panchanma, PW-9, Rajaram Annappa Jadhav is a Panch witness to the blood-stained clothes of the accused. PW-13, is a Panch witness to the recovery of the incriminating article, i.e. scythe. PW-14, Ashok Shankarro Survagand is the Investigating Officer attached to the Gadhinglaj Police Station, through whom the Inquest Panchanama of the scene of offence, the post mortem certificate, recovery of incriminating article No. 7 (scythe) are proved. He had sent the articles to the Chemical Analyzer for analysis. He had submitted the charge sheet. The accused denied the charges. The trial commenced and the appellant was convicted.

4. Heard the Advocate for the respective contentions raised in the appeal. We have re-weighted and re-appreciated the testimony of all the witnesses and the material placed on the record including grounds raised. After going through the same, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order is correct. The point-wise reasons, as recorded are sufficient to maintain the impugned judgment and order. There is no perversity or any reason made out to interfere with the duly proved prosecution's case. We have also noted the testimony of three eye-witnesses, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-10 who had witnessed that in the morning at about 6.00 a.m., the accused was giving blows to the deceased with the scythe. The deceased was lying on the ground when the accused was giving blows. PW-2 and P-10, when they heard the shouts at about 6.00 a.m., they opened the door and saw that the deceased was lying on the ground and the accused- appellant was giving blows with the scythe. PW-2, Sonabai asked the accused not to beat. However, the accused warned her not to interfere. The accused also threatened her and, therefore, she went to her house and chained the door. PW-10, Virupaksh, in his testimony, supported the testimony of PW- 2, and the above incident. PW-5 Ujwala had also noticed the noise and, therefore, she went out of her house. She saw that the accused was giving blows with scythe to the accused. She also deposed that Sonabai requested the accused not to beat Mama (deceased). She also corroborates that the accused asked Sonabai not to interfere or she would also get beating. This witness also deposed that she took her mother-in-law and the wife of her brother-in-law to her house. Another witness, PW-4, Chanappa deposed that after hearing the shouts from Ambi Lane, he went towards the same and there he saw that the deceased was lying and the accused was standing near him, holding the scythe. On inquiring from the accused, the accused asked this witness also to go. He also deposed that he saw the blood on the body of the deceased. He also deposed that PW-10, Virupakash Ambi, and his wife PW-2, Sonabai, were also present on the scene. Nothing could be extracted in favour of the accused in their cross-examination. These witnesses supported the case of the prosecution without any doubt.

5. PW-11, Dr. Mallikarjun has proved through the Post Mortem Report, the cause of death based on the 17 injuries on the body of the deceased. He further proved that such injuries could be caused by the weapon in question and the cumulative effect of these injuries and bleeding resulted in the death of the deceased. As noted above, the incriminating article was also recovered and duly proved through the Panchas. The other supporting witnesses proved the necessary links through the Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama, complaint and blood reports to corroborate the prosecution's case. The reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, are within the framework of the record, as well as, the law.

6. One additional facet which cannot be overlooked in this matter and which is also duly proved by all these witnesses, including PW-6, Dundavva the mother of the accused, apart from the incident, that there was regular quarrel between the deceased and the accused. The accused was unemployed. He was a drunkard. Therefore, for alcohol, he used to sell even the food grains from the house. There were regular quarrels in the house of the accused, who was living with his wife, because of his drinking habits. The relations of the accused with the deceased were not cordial. PW-6 Dundavva the mother of the accused has also deposed that even though the relations of the accused with his father was good, however, the accused used to quarrel with his father after consuming liquor. She further deposed that they had requested the accused not to consume liquor and not to sell the food grains, but in vain. He used to consume liquor and wander here and there. Therefore, because of frustration, she (mother) and the deceased left the house of the accused for eight days. However, at the request of the wife of the accused and her brother, they came back to stay in the same house. The other witnesses also deposed about the regular quarrel between the father and the son.

7. The accused in the present case, intentionally, recklessly and knowing fully, the consequences of his action, assaulted his own father. The Post Mortem Report shows the injuries caused by the accused to the deceased. This proves his guilty mind and the guilt. There are no mitigating circumstances in the present case to reduce the punishment as imposed by the leaned Sessions Judge. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding given by the learned Sessions Judge are correct. There is no ground made out to interfere with the said finding. We are of the opinion that there is no other possible view based on the material read and referred in this matter. There is no merit in the Appeal.

8. For the above reasons, we confirm the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj and dismiss the Appeal.

9. We quantify the fees to be paid to the Advocate appointed for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. at Rs. 1,500/- for this Appeal.