STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State-applicant has sought leave to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 7th May, 2012 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2006 acquitting the respondent original accused from the charge of commission of offences under Sections 302, 201, of Indian Penal Code. The said prosecution was initiated by the Taloja Police Station, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad as a result of investigation of C.R. No. 108 of 2005 registered with the said police station upon the report (Exhibit-17) lodged by PW. 1 Mohsin Abdulla Shaikh, husband of the victim Nasima on 18th September, 2005 regarding the commission of such offences by the respondent at Village Ovepeth on the same day. The Trial Court after appreciation of a prosecution evidence predominantly of circumstantial nature acquitted the respondent.

(2.) Mr. P.S. Hingorani, Learned APP vehemently contended that the trial court miserably failed to appreciate the significance of various circumstances duly established by cogent and convincing evidence at the trial. He urged that apart from the respondent having not disputed victim Nasima having met with homicidal death the same is duly established by the evidence of PW. 3 Dr. Rajendrakumar Gundappa Itkari, Medical Officer, Panvel Rural Hospital regarding autopsy conducted by him of the corpse of Nasima, the injuries found on her corpse and noted by him and cause of death of Nasima given by him. He urged that said evidence is duly corroborated by the further evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the situation prevailing in the vicinity of corpse and of corpse of Nasim as established by the evidence of spot panch (PW. 7) Abdul Ajij Ahmadmiya Shaikh and of inquest panch (PW. 8) Chandrakala Harishchandra Waskar and of police witnesses PW. 16 API, Arun Manohar Pimpale. It was urged that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is duly supported by the documentary evidence in shape of P.M. notes (Exhibit-22), spot panchnama (Exhibit-27) and Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-29) duly proved by the prosecution on the record. Learned APP contended that the cumulative effect of said evidence leads to no other conclusion than deceased Nasima having met with homicidal death.

(3.) He further contended that through the evidence of PW. 1- husband and particularly his evidence in paragraph No. 7 of Nasima having appraised him in detail as to how respondent was having evil eye upon her, the prosecution has established that the respondent had a probable motive for the commission of crime in question. It was urged that by adducing the evidence of PW. 4 Shafiya Yasin Shaikh, PW. 5 Mukhtyar Mahamad Shaikh, PW. 2 Mobin Sayyad Shaikh, PW. 6 Isak Abdul Quadir Shaikh, PW. 15 Vikas @ Kutkutya Motiram Joshi, villagers who had seen the respondent in the vicinity of the place at which the corpse was found, some time prior to occurrence of an incident and/or thereafter has further established of respondent having a good opportunity for commission of an crime in question. It was urged that out of them the evidence of PW. 4 further discloses that the respondent then was seen in the frightened condition and that at the relevant time the respondent was interested in seeing that PW. 4 does not go further i.e. towards the place at which the dead body of the deceased was found. It was urged that the evidence of the said witnesses considered in proper prospective also reveals that reason then advanced by the respondent for his such conduct was false. It was urged that the prosecution through the evidence of PW. 13 Vasudeo Janu Waskar and I.O. PW. 17 P.I. Nasirkhan Rhimankhan Pathan, had established that the respondent was having the knowledge about the place at which Nasima had died and so also about the place at which her chappal was lying.