CHARANSING ALIAS CHNYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 28.11.2008, passed by the Additonal Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case. No. 76 of 2008, by which the appellant-accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo further S.I. for two months.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused (appointed) submitted that evidence of PW 1 and PW 4, who claim to be eye witnesses, suffers from material contradictions. Both these witnesses are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon and the same should not have been taken into consideration. One of the witness stated that weapon used for commission of alleged offence is manufactured by the family of the witnesses as they being blacksmith. However, another witness does not say so. Therefore, in respectful submission of the counsel for the appellant, the evidence of PW 1 and PW 4 is not reliable. It is further submitted that though independent witnesses were available, however those were not cross examined by the prosecution. Panch witness on the inquest panchnama has not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that between narration made in the complaint and evidence led before the Court by PW 1, there are material contradictions. It is further submitted that one Parubai had given information to the Police Officer and the said information itself should have been construed as First Information Report, and in view of the information given by Parubai, first in time, by telephonic message to the police, the complaint lodged by PW 1 Sunita could not have been considered. It is further submitted that in statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused stated that since he has lodged complaint against the husband of P.W.1 Sunita, the complaint in question filed against him is false. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of eye witnesses is required to be scrutinized minutely by this Court. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Badam Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2004 AIR(SC) 26 and more particularly para 16 of the said judgment to contend that merely because the eye witnesses have deposed in favour of the prosecution, that itself is not sufficient to upheld the conviction unless their evidence is scrutinized minutely. Learned counsel further submitted that looking into the nature of injuries and quarrel took place between the appellant and deceased, the case in hand is not covered under section 300 of I.P.C. According to the learned counsel, looking to the facts of entire incident, the injuries sustained by the deceased and the complaint filed by the appellant accused against the husband of PW 1, the case of the appellant would fall under one of the exception of Section 300 of I.P.C. In support of her contention she placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Pappu @ Hari Om Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 ALLMR(Cri) 2181 (S.C.) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Toni Vs. State of Haryana, 2009 13 SCC 401. Learned counsel invited our attention to the evidence of PW 1, PW 4, PW 8 and the Evidence of Medical Officer and submitted that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the impugned judgment and order may be set aside and the accused appellant should be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.