MAHADEO DATTATRYA RAJMANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 8-11-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 79 and 80 of 1995, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo two years R. I. , for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC, has come up in appeal before us. It is pertinent to mention that along with the appellant was tried one Suresh Garule but, he has been acquitted vide the impugned Judgment and the State of Maharashtra has not challenged his acquittal by preferring an appeal under section 378 (1) Cr. P. C.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case runs as under :- One Pandurang Mali PW 1 runs a cycle shop at village Palus, Taluka Tasgaon, District Sangli. He and his son Umesh Mali PW 4 work in the said shop. Pandurang Mali claims that he knew the appellant from before the incident as he used to take cycle on hire, from his shop. On 25-7-1994, at about12 noon, while Pandurang Mali and his son Umesh Mali were busy repairing cycles in their shop, a ambassador car bearing no. MTK - 8456, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a tractor standing by the side of the road and thereafter entered their cycle - shop. Pandurang Mali and Umesh Mali came out of the shop. Thereafter, the appellant and an unknown person who were inside the car ran away. The endeavour of Pandurang and others to chase them failed. Pandurang and others saw inside the car a cloth having blood stains, a blood - stained knife and a packet of chilly powder.

(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellant and Suresh Garule were charged for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 IPC to which charge they pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. We may straight away mention that there is no eye - witness of the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. THE learned trial Judge believed the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in para 1 above. Hence, this appeal.