VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').

(2.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows : On 13.2.1986 Police Head Constable Dinkar Shankar Dumbre (PW-1) was attached to Railway Police Head Quarters at Ghatkopar. At the relevant time, his nature of work was to receive the telephonic message from outside and convey the said message to the Railway Reserve Inspector. On 13.2.1986 at about 1845 hrs. Mr. Gavade Head Constable came and informed Dinkar Dumbre (PW1) that in Room No. 41 of building No. 24, one lady is lying in injured condition in a pool of blood. The said constable also informed that he came to know about the said fact from the ladies residing in the said building. On receipt of this message Dinkar Dumbre (PW1) proceeded to the place of incident. He noticed one lady lying in pool of blood in the bathroom of the house. Dinkar Dumbre (PW1) appointed one police constable to guard the said place of incident and he proceeded to inform the said fact to RSI, Caze. Dinkar Dumbre (PW1) also informed the abovesaid fact to Tilak Nagar police station. The police from Tilak Nagar police station arrived at the place of incident. The statement of PWI was recorded by Tilak Nagar police which was treated as First Information Report. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses to substantiate its accusations and the trial was held as the accused pleaded innocence. The trial Court found the evidence to be sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused. Questioning the conviction and the sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, an appeal was filed before the Bombay High Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. As the case rested on circumstantial evidence the trial Court and the High Court analysed the evidence with great detail and held the accused guilty. The appeal did not bring any relief.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the circumstances have not been established to find him guilty.