IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.114 OF 2012
BASAVARAJ alias BASAVANNAPPA
PARMESHWAR BANGARGIR ….APPELLANT(S)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT(S)
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
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
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
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.
OCTOBER 01, 2018.