RAVINDRA HANUMANT MANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 29/10/1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case no.199/90 convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer life imprisonment and fine.

(2.) APPELLANT no.1 died on 2/1/2006 and appellant no.2 died on 11/2/2002. Therefore, by order dated 6/4/2011, this Court passed an order of abetment of the appeal against appellant nos.1 and 2. Today appellant -accused No.3 is before us.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for appellant/accused No.3 argued that the appellant is falsely involved in this case. Due to the discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W. 11 who claimed to be the eye witnesses, presence of this accused is doubtful. He pointed out the history recorded by the medical officer on the case paper wherein the medical officer has mentioned that deceased Zuber was found lying on the road side. He submitted that there are material improvements on the part of P.W.4 as well as P.W. 11 in respect of stating the actual assault by stick by accused no.3 on Zuber. He submitted that so far as the F.I.R. is concerned, it does not reveal names of accused nos.3 and 4, but only names of accused nos.1 and 2 were given by the complainant. He argued that when the complainant was present he should have mentioned the names of accused nos.3 and 4 immediately in the F.I.R.. However, this is afterthought and, therefore, in the supplementary statement which was recorded on the next day, the names of the present appellant and accused no.4 are appearing. Learned counsel argued that the explanation given by P.W. 11 that he was threatened to life by the accused and,therefore, he did not mention his name in the FIR cannot be accepted because he immediately on the next day had mentioned names of accused nos.3 and