SURAJ HARISINGH BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is convicted for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand) in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for Six months. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 8th March, 2011 passed by 1st AdHoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, in Sessions case No. 58 of 2010, convicting the appellant is under challenge in this appeal preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.PC').

(2.) In a brief outline of the material aspect, it may be noticed that in the present case, the appellant was charged with the imputation that he killed his father by strangulation. The appellant/accused was serving as a Watchman and residing in temporary premises i.e. Pump House room of building known as Duck Villa situated at 17/3, Aazad Nagar, Char Road, RAK Marg Police Station, Wadala Mumbai. It is alleged that the father of accused Harisingh Bahadur (deceased) was also residing at the said premises. On receipt of information, police reached the spot of incident. They found dead body of deceased. Spot Panchanama was prepared. Dead body was sent for post-mortem. Accidental Death Report ('ADR' for short) bearing No. 79 of 2009 was registered. Subsequently, offence was registered vide C.R. No. 266 of 2009 punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The accused was arrested. On completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Case was committed to Court of Sessions. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC. After hearing submissions of both the sides, the trial Court convicted the appellant.

(3.) There is no eye witness to the incident of murder. The prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence. Trial Court opined that there are several circumstances in favour of prosecution. It was observed that accused was present in the premises at the relevant time and it can be gathered that several facts were within his inconclusive knowledge and therefore it was necessary for the accused to explain these facts. He has not given any explanation as how his father sustained injuries which resulted into his death, and who had caused the same, and how his death had occurred. It is further held that Section 106 of Evidence Act would help the prosecution, as the accused had knowledge of several facts and he preferred to remain silent.