AVDHOOT VITHAL GHATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dtd. 24/4/2014 in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2013.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the prosecution case entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence in this case. There is no chain of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has failed to establish the motive on the part of the appellant-accused for commission of crime of murder. Learned counsel submits that P.W.3 Vaijanath Kardile, in whose field the appellant-accused was working as labourer alongwith deceased Pandurang, has admitted that there was no dispute or quarrel taken place amongst the labourers working in his field. Learned counsel submits that even there is no evidence about last seen together. P.W.3 Vaijanath Kardile has admitted in his cross examination that in his presence deceased Pandurang and appellant-accused Avdhoot had not gone to Darshan of Palkhi (religious function). Learned counsel submits that except the so called evidence about confession, there is no connecting evidence against the appellant-accused. Learned counsel submits that though P.W.11 Special Judicial Magistrate, Bhaskar Bhos was not empowered, he has conducted the identification parade. Furthermore, the so-called identification parade suffers from various deficiencies. Learned counsel submits that the confession Exh.42 is also not free from suspicion. P.W.11 Bhaskar Bhos has not complied with the procedural mandate before recording the confession. He has not got satisfied himself as to whether the confession is voluntary. Learned counsel submits that at the most, suspicion is created against the appellant-accused. The said suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the form of legal proof. Learned counsel submits that the appellant-accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused, in order to substantiate his submissions, placed reliance on the following cases:-