STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BALIRAM KESHAV KOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned APP for the State - Appellant, Mr. B. G. Tangsali for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Ms. Sharmila Kaushik h/f. Mr. Shirish Gupte for Respondent No.4. Accused No. 3 is dead and therefore appeal against him abates.

(2.) THIS is an appeal against acquittal. Learned APP took us through the judgment and the entire evidence and contended that even though the victim Baban and two witnesses who had received injuries were examined by the prosecution in the case under Section307 of the Indian Penal Code, even though the incident has taken place in broad day light, even though the eye witnesses had a consistent story about the incident and even though the knife was recovered at the place pointed out by the witness and even though medical evidence fully supported the ocular evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused holding that some other Baliram might have caused the assault. He submitted that the findings of the trial court are not at all consistent with the facts proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He also contended that the order of acquittal and reasons given therefor by the trial court were perverse.

(3.) THIRDLY the evidence of the other witnesses is clinching, convincing and it proves the recovery of the knife from the spot. In the above background we cannot concur with the findings of the trial court.