GANESH BHAU SONAWANE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Appeal the appellant ('the accused' for short) takes exception to judgment and order dated 13th February, 2007 passed by Sessions Court at Sewree in Sessions Case No. 222/2006 by which the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section and Section of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ -in default to suffer imprisonment for one month and to suffer R.I. For seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ -in default to suffer one month simple imprisonment, respectively. The accused has been convicted for causing murder of his aunt Laxmibai B. Narayankar on 17th December, 2005.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the prosecution case is as under:

(3.) MR . Apte, learned Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the said circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence for which he has been convicted. According to learned Counsel PW7 Ramlal Kahar who claimed to have seen the accused alongwith deceased in 'Sai Krupa' bungalow at about 12 noon could not have done so since there is a six feet compound wall around Shaswat bungalow in which he was working. Learned Counsel further submitted that no reliance can be placed on the recovery of weapon inasmuch as the same is from open place and after a period of about 11 days. Insofar as recovery of clothes is concerned, learned Counsel submitted that there is a variation between the colour of clothes seized and the colour of the clothes as deposed by the witness to the seizure panchnama. Learned Counsel further submitted that no reliance can be placed on the bill dated 18/12/2005 Exhibit 25 produced by PW5 Dharamchand Jain inasmuch as the same does not bear the signature of the accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that perusal of the bill book discloses that in respect of other bills the signature of the seller was obtained and, therefore, it is evident that the bill book has been fabricated by the prosecution to falsely implicate the accused. Insofar as identification parade held by PW8 is concerned, learned Counsel submitted that no reliance can be placed since all the dummies were of different age and complexion and further there is a variation as to the number of dummies present at the parade as per the versions of PW7 and PW8. Learned Counsel further submitted that identification of the ornaments by PW1 Meena under panchnama conducted by police is clearly inadmissible and, therefore, the identification of the said ornaments by PW1 Meena for the first time in the Court does not carry much weight. Learned Counsel further submitted that the version of PW5 that initially the accused have sold two bangles and on the same day the accused approached him with two bangles in evening and collected Rs. 10,000/ -is absolutely unbelievable and in any case not supported by any documentary evidence. According to learned Counsel the theory of last seen together is not applicable inasmuch as PW7 Ramlal Kahar claims to have seen deceased Laxmibai with accused at 12 o'clock whereas the death of Laxmibai admittedly occurred after 6.30 p.m. and in the absence of any cogent evidence having been led by the prosecution that the accused was seen in the bungalow after 6.30 p.m., the theory of last seen together has absolutely no relevance besides being improbable. According to learned Counsel the key which was alleged to have been found in the pant recovered at the instance of the accused was not tried on the lock of the bungalow and as such an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. Mr. Apte further submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution does not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled to be acquitted of both the offences for which he has been convicted by the trial Court. Mr. Apte placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhoo vs. State of U.P. : AIR 1963 SC 1113.