RAMNATH ALIAS SAMEER VEREKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2/6/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Panaji in Sessions Case No.19/2006 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount on being recovered has been ordered to be paid to Rashida Hussein, the wife of the deceased.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: On 5/6/2006 at about 13.35 hours telephonic information was received at Panaji Police Station that there was an incident of assault near Mahalaxmi Temple, Boca de Vaca Panaji. Accordingly, P.I., M.K. Gaonkar, P.S.I. S.S. Narvenkar and the staff rushed to the spot. At the spot which was near Vatsal Bhavan near Mahalaxmi temple, Panaji they noticed Gulzar Hussein Laxmidhar lying in front of a building next to his residence in a pool of blood with injuries on his head and leg. He was immediately shifted at GMC Bambolim for treatment. The injured was found medically unfit for recording his statement and he expired on the same day at 3.35 p.m.. Idrish Gulzar Laxmidhar, PW 21, the son of the deceased lodged F.I.R against the accused vide Crime No.140/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.. The scene of offence Panchanama and Inquest Panchanama were conducted. Post Mortem was also conducted on the dead body of the deceased and his clothes were also attached and sealed. The investigation revealed that the accused and deceased stayed in the same locality and the accused was friendly with Farhana, the daughter of the victim when she was going to school. On 25/11/2003, the accused registered his marriage with Farhana at Civil Registration office Tiswadi without the knowledge of parents of Farhana. Subsequently, Farhana started ignoring and avoiding the accused on account of which the accused started harassing Farhana and her family members. During this time, Farhana consented to get married to a boy in Mumbai. The accused realized Farhana's intention and he started threatening Farhana and her family members of causing physical injuries. Pursuant to the report filed by Farhana's family members, a chapter case was registered against accused. It is the case of the prosecution that as Farhana and her parents were not responding to the attempts made by the accused to get Farhana as his legally wedded wife, the accused with premeditation assaulted Gulzar on 5/6/2006 with a base ball bat near his house when he was returning home for lunch, causing grievous injuries on his head and left leg leading to his death. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused ran away from the spot and went to Arabo, Pernem on motorcycle bearing no.GA5 07-B-3110. The accused was arrested on the same day at 23.00 hours at Arabo, Pernem from the house of his sister. The clothes worn by the accused at the time of commission of the crime were attached and sealed under panchanama. The motorcycle was also attached. The base ball bat used by the accused in commission of the offence was discovered at the instance of the accused and the same was attached and sealed. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Sessions Court which was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Panaji, which was registered as Sessions Case no.19 /2006. In Sessions case no.19/2006, the accused was charged for offence punishable under sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and produced several documents. The statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C was recorded. The defence of the accused was of bare denial and false implantation. The accused also took up a defence that he was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time and that he was at Arabo Pernem. In support of his case, the accused examined one defence witness Nikhil Naik as DW.1, who also produced documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, held that the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. was proved against the accused but the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C was not proved and consequently convicted and sentenced the accused as above.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution clearly proves the complicity of the accused in the commission of the murder of the deceased Shri Gulzar. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish strong motive on the part of the accused and the strained relations between the accused and deceased on account of opposition of the deceased and his family members to the marriage of the accused with the daughter of the deceased. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for convicting the accused cannot be faulted since they are borne out from the evidence on record. Mr. Ferreira further submitted that the evidence of the informant, his sister and mother is natural and as such,inspires confidence. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the evidence of Mr. J. Shah, PW.4 and Milind Ramani, PW.6 does not efface the evidence of the informant, Idrish Laxmidhar,PW.21, Farhana Laxmidhar, PW.28 and Rashida Hussein,PW.15. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the accused has taken a false defence that he was not at Panaji in the morning of 5/6/2006, which is clearly belied by the telephone calls statement produced by the prosecution which establishes that the accused had made calls from Panaji till 10.19 a.m. on 5/6/2006. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has been able to establish discovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused and the same cannot be said to be unreliable. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, nonexamination of Amlani, the owner of the flat in which the informant was present at the time of commission of the crime, cannot be said to be fatal. He further submitted that considering the fact that the deceased was in hospital, there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R by son of the deceased and the delay of few hours in lodging the F.I.R is quite natural, considering the factual situation at the relevant time. According to the Public Prosecutor, the evidence led by the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of the accused in commission of the murder of the deceased and therefore no interference is warranted with impugned judgment and order.