STATE OF GOA Vs. SAPANA ALIAS SAVITA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 25/03/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, Goa in Sessions Case No.31/2005, whereby the respondent who was the accused was acquitted of offences under Section 302 and 392 of the IPC.

(2.) The case of the appellants/prosecution was that an FIR No.118/2005 was registered by the Mapusa Police Station to the effect that the respondent/accused on 14/06/2005 between 7.00 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. at Revora, Bardez, Goa assaulted her sister by name Sunita Pilgaonkar with wooden stick and crow bar thereby killing her on the spot and robbed her gold ornaments. The accused was charge sheeted on 13/09/2005 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa which was subsequently committed to the Sessions Court and the charges were framed against the respondents under Section 302 and 392 of the IPC. After examining the witnesses of the appellants/prosecution and on perusal of the material produced by the appellants, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 25/03/2009 acquitted the respondent for offences punishable under Section 302 and 392 of the IPC on benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants preferred the above appeal which came to be admitted on 7/12/2009.

(3.) Shri C.A. Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has totally failed to appreciate the evidence on record which conclusively establishes that the respondent had committed the offences punishable under Section 302 and 392 of the IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that though there was no eye witness to establish the commission of the murder by the respondent, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence on record which conclusively establishes that the respondent had assaulted the victim and, as such, had committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appellants had established that the gold ornaments belonging to the victim were sold by the respondent to the goldsmith which besides being the circumstance to establish the fact that the respondent had committed the offence of murder nevertheless she was also liable to be punished for committing an offence under Section 392 of the IPC. The learned Counsel took us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and pointed out that the chain of events had been established by the appellants on the basis of different circumstances which establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had committed offences punishable under Section 302 and 392 of the IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had erroneously acquitted the respondent by giving the benefit of doubt.