RAJU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocate, appointed to appear on behalf of the appellant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the Respondent. Appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli, delivered on 25th May, 2005. By the said judgment and order, the Sessions Judge, Sangli was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I. P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case is that accused was younger brother of one Balaso Chougule and he was residing in his house. The wife of the accused had left the matrimonial house and therefore, the appellant/accused was living with his brother, wife-Shakuntala and two children. Since the wife of the appellants brother used to tease the accused, there used to be quarrel between accused and Shakuntala. According to prosecution, on 14th May, 2004 accused came in the house and assaulted Shakuntala with blows of sickle on her neck and this incident was witnessed PW 1 Ujwala and PW 3 Varsha. The trial court on the basis of testimony of two eye witnesses and other material on record was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has taken us through the judgment and order of the trial court and also the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He has submitted that the trial court has erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of statements of PW 1 Ujwala and PW 3 Varsha. It is submitted that these witnesses are interested witnesses and as such no reliance can be placed on their testimony. He also submitted that trial court had erred in giving much credence to their testimony.