SANJAYKUMAR KIRANPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sejpal, learned Counsel for the Applicant/appellant and Mrs. Pai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that in the instant case the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that the circumstances which are brought on record, are wholly inadequate to bring home the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the discovery of knife as well as clothes having human blood has not been done in accordance with the procedure stipulated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(3.) It is contended that even the so called extra-judicial confession which was alleged to have been made by the accused to PW-4 Anilkumar cannot be relied on since PW-4 did not support the prosecution on this issue, hence the prosecution sought permission to cross-examine him.