STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAVINDRA ANANDA MHATRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of the deceased Laxmikant G. Kadam and her relatives approached the police with a grievance that said Laxmikant is murdered by these two respondents. Their complaint fell on deaf ears. Even though they approached higher police officials, but in vain. Ultimately they were compelled to approach the Court of JMFC in Pune with a private complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the concerned witness and was pleased to issue the process for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against these respondents.

(2.) After commitment of the case it was tried just like a police case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They have pleaded not guilty. Sum and substance of the Complainant's/prosecution case is that both the accused murdered the deceased on 23rd December 1999 near Bal Gandharva Rang Mandir, Pune. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses. The job of the prosecution was too onerous. On one hand they have to explain the action taken by the local police on the complaint of wife of the deceased whereas on the other hand they have to lead the evidence. It is very well true that admittedly there is no eye witness to the incident. It seems that the prosecution more relied upon motive and lack of satisfactory explanation given by both these respondents. The deceased was in the company of both these respondents on 23rd December 1999 in the evening. The deceased Laxmikant left house in the evening along with both these respondents under the pretext of walking and instead of returning safe, deceased was brought in an injured condition by both these respondents. So prosecution claims that it is for the respondents to give explanation as to how the deceased suffered injuries. The accused Nos.1 and 2 gave an explanation in a statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the date of incident i.e. 23rd December 1999 at 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. both the respondents and the deceased had gone to Bal Gandharva Rang Mandir theater for viewing the drama. The deceased Laxmikant went ahead for purchasing of tickets. When both these respondents went there, they could not see deceased. As a result both were about to return home. Near Omkareshwar temple they noticed a crowd. They also noticed deceased Laxmikant lying on the ground in an injured condition. Respondent No.1 also gave an explanation that deceased was beaten by auto-rikshaw driver on failure to pay charges. In such a manner, they brought deceased Laxmikant home through an autorickshaw.

(3.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered this explanation while disbelieving the prosecution case whereas according to the appellant, this is false explanation and giving a false explanation goes against both these respondents and it shows their culpability.