KISANPAL RAMPAL PASWAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the Judgment and Order dtd. 23/9/2011, passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, City Sessions Fast-Track Court, Sewree, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.329 of 2011, convicting and sentencing him, as under:-

(2.) A few facts as are necessary to decide the aforesaid appeal are set out hereinunder :-

(3.) Learned Advocate, appointed for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and that the circumstances on record were not sufficient to convict the appellant for the said offence. He submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case as against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt i.e. the alleged circumstances of last seen; extra judicial confession made to PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde and PW7 - Abdul Shaikh and recovery of an odani. He submits that the alleged confession made by the appellant to PW1 - Yeshwant Shinde, a police officer was clearly hit by Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act. He further submits that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that merely because the appellant has not explained the circumstances against him or has not discharged his burden under Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act, would not absolve the prosecution from proving its case. Learned Counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan and Another v/s State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 ;