GUNVANT ROHIDAS BANSODE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag dtd. 14/3/2011 in Sessions Case No.137 of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant accused for the charge under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.1,000.00 as fine and in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as under:

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant accused has assailed the impugned judgment and order on many grounds. She submitted that the prosecution evidence was mainly of circumstantial nature. The recovery of weapon (knife) at Lonavala after a considerable period is not at all acceptable as the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant had gone to Lonavala after committing the alleged crime. She submitted that the statements of PW8 (Ayesha) and PW9 (Zarina) were not trustworthy as they themselves were guilty of misappropriation of stolen articles. There was no explanation by the prosecution as to the condition of the said knife. She submitted that the evidence in respect of C.A. report regarding blood sample of the appellant was prepared without following proper procedure. There is no details about the date and time when the blood sample of the accused was taken which vitiates the reliability of the said evidence. The learned Counsel submitted that the trial Judge failed to appreciate the existence of foot print which was found in the blood, spilled over the floor, of unknown person at the place of incident. This was clearly indicative of the presence of a third person at the relevant time. She also submitted that the motive being the alleged crime was not properly established and still, the statement of PW3 (Anandsing) was accepted at its face value. She further submitted that the objection of the appellant to the conclusion regarding the postmortem report of the deceased that the absence of state of rigor mortis clearly indicated that the time of the death of the deceased, as given by the prosecution, was in clear doubt. She submitted that mere presence of the appellant at the spot of the incident on earlier day could not have been sufficient to prove the alleged involvement of the appellant in the crime. There were contradictions in respect of seizure of camera of Canon make and the same vitiated the version of recovery of stolen articles. In the aforesaid background, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the present Appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgement and order needs to be quashed and set aside.