Supreme Court of India
Basavaraj @ Basavannappa … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2018Author: J Navin Sinha 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
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2018.10.01
16:59:33 IST
Reason:
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

News Reporter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: