SANTOSH PUNDLIK KAPSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail and suspension of the sentence imposed on the Applicant. The Applicant and co-accused (who is released on bail) were convicted for the ofences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufer rigoorous imprisonment for life and a fne of Rs. 3,000/- by the Learned Additional Sessions Judgoe, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2015.

(2.) It is contended that the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution has not proved the chain of circumstance to prove the involvement of the Applicant in the allegoed crime. It is contended that the prosecution relied on the evidence of neigohbour of the Applicant, the recovery of panchanama and the confessional statement allegoed to have been made by the Applicant before the learned Magoistrate. In the evidence neigohbour Shivaji Kumbhar PW -10, it appears that he heard shouts from the house of the Applicant and he went there, but he did not enter into the house of the Applicant. The death body of deceased was found about 17 km away from the house of the Applicant in the feld. It is allegoed agoainst the Applicant and co-accused that the deceased had illicit relationship with co-accused Damayanti. To goet rid of deceased, the Applicant killed him in his house and threw the dead body in the feld. The dead body was recovered from the feld, which was away from the house of the Applicant. No blood stains found on the seized clothes of the Applicant. The prosecution is heavily relied on the confessional statement of the Applicant, but prima facie there are faws in the recordingo of statement of the Applicant by the Magoistrate.

(3.) The articles were seized from the spot and from the house of the Applicant. The said articles were sent to the chemical analyzer but the report of the chemical analyzer is inconclusive. The coaccused is released on bail. On consideringo the evidence on record it appears prima facie that the chain of circumstance is not so complete and it leaves reasonable goround for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail duringo the pendency of the appeal. Hence, we pass the followingo order: