LAWS(BOM)-2022-12-215

PRAFUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On December 06, 2022
Praful Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant (accused) challenges judgment and order of conviction dtd. 28/6/2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No.33/2018 whereby learned judge convicted the accused for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine Rs.5000.00 and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was also convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 498- A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine Rs.3000.00 and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Learned Judge below directed that all sentences of the accused shall run concurrently and also set-off under Sec. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was given to him since he was in jail.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to filing of the appeal would run thus :

(3.) On the basis of the report, police have registered an offence against the accused vide Crime No.153/2018 under Ss. 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal. After registration of the crime, wheels of investigation started rotating. During the investigation, Investigating Officer drawn spot and inquest panchanamas, seized nylon rope stained with blood. During the investigation, clothes of the deceased and clothes of the accused were seized by drawing panchanama. A photographer was called to obtain photographs of the dead body of the deceased as well as spot of the incident. All incriminating articles were forwarded to Chemical Analyzer along with letter. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed chargesheet against the accused. As the offence was punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge vide Exhibit-10. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.