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