ARUN KISAN MADAVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for the murder of Prem Haridas Dhole under section 302 of I. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide judgment dated 30th September, 1997 found the appellant guilty under section 302 of I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The period during which the appellant was in custody during trial was set off under section 428 of Cri. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that about 15 days prior to incident in question one Omprakash father-in-law of the appellant was arrested by the Government Railway Police, Nagpur in a case of theft of lacs of rupees. In connection with the said fact, the deceased who was a porter of Railway Station, Nagpur was asked by G. R. P. Police to keep a watch on the appellant, being son in law of Omprakash. The appellant came to know of the same and on 15-6-1996, he came to the house of the deceased and threatened his wife, informing her that her husband Prem Dhole-deceased was acting as informer for Railway Police and he would teach a lesson to him. On 18-6-1996, at about 8. 00 a. m. , the deceased Prem Dhole had gone from his house towards the house of the appellant and within 15 minutes or so, he was found murdered. It appears that the incident was seen by number of eye-witnesses, but all turned hostile and they did not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the testimony of P. W. 1 Rajesh Dhole, brother of the deceased, the testimony of P. W. 3 Shashikala wife of the decease, P. W. 5 Sopan Khobragade co-brother of the deceased, and recovery of the dagger as also blood stained banian of the appellant recovered at his instance from his house, in respect of which panch P. W. 2 Diwakar has been examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, accepted the evidence of the said witnesses and has recorded the conviction of the appellant which is the subject matter of challenge before us.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant took us through the evidence of the witnesses and urged before us that the incident dated 15-6-1996 has not been proved through any independent evidence is as much as the prosecution has not examined anyone from G. R. P. to suggest that the deceased was asked to keep watch over the appellant. He has next contended that the evidence of P. W. 5 Sopan does not prove that the appellant had inflicted the injuries with the knife on the deceased and his evidence is not sufficient in order to prove the charge of murder as against the appellant.