SIDDHAPPA ANDAPPA ANDOLGI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 28th August, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.535/2005 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant-accused and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the appellant-accused has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Shri R.K.Rathore, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court pursuant to order dated 27th May, 2019 passed by us, has vehemently submitted that relying upon the deposition of the child witness-PW-6, the Trial Court has acquitted the other co-accused. It is submitted that however despite the same, the Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused relying upon the deposition of the very child witness-PW-6. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the deposition of the child witness.

(3.) Shri Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Maharashtra while opposing the present appeal has vehemently submitted that in the present case, the case of the prosecution is fully supported by the deposition of the child witness. He further submitted that he is the eye witness and in fact he has seen the appellant committing the offence. It is submitted that he has been fully cross-examined and even thereafter he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that so far as the other co- accused who came to be acquitted by the learned Trial Court are concerned, the role attributed to them is altogether different and it was found that there was no active participation by them. He further submitted that so far as the appellant-accused is concerned, he has actively participated in the commission of the offence, therefore, he has been rightly convicted by the Trial Court and the same is rightly confirmed by the High Court.