The Bombay high court has upheld the conviction of a 42-year-old man who beheaded his father on October 2, 2007, over property dispute with his parents and younger brother.
A division bench of justices VK Tahilramani and AR Joshi upheld the convection of Bhausaheb Jakhere who assaulted his father, Sahadu, with a sickle and then beheaded him.
On April 5, 2010, Nashik sessions court had convicted him for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs5,000.
According to the prosecution, there was a quarrel between the father and the son, as Jakhere was demanding his share of the ancestral agricultural property which was in the father's name.
Additional public prosecutor Aruna Pai argued that on October 2, 2007, Jakhere assaulted his father. Jakhere and his family were residing with his father on the agricultural farm owned by the father. His younger brother, Shivaji, was residing with his family on the next plot of land.
On the fateful night, after dinner, Jakhere's mother and his two children went to sleep inside the house. Jakhere and his father slept in the room outside. After some time, when the mother heard some commotion she came to the next room and saw Jakhere assaulting his father with a sickle. She tried to intervene, but in vain. In the effort, she also sustained injuries on her arms.
She ran out and called her younger son. Shivaji and another neighbour came and they saw Jakhere sitting outside the house and a sickle lying on the ground. He sat in utter silence, and despite questioning, didn't reply as to how the incident took place.
During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses which included Jakhere's mother, younger brother and a relative.
Defence advocate Sarojini Upadhyay argued that Jakhere was being implicated. She further argued that the motive as to the dispute over the agricultural property has not been established.
However, not believing the defence arguments, the high court said: "Needless to say that the motive assumes much importance when the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}