ABHIMAN SATYABHAN SALVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Abhiman Satyabhan Salve was tried for committing murder of one Dilip More before the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998. THE prosecution examined in all ten witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge by accepting the prosecution evidence, found the appellant guilty for the offence of murder and by judgment and order dated-3rd October, 1998, convicted the appellant for offence under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R. I. for three months. This conviction and sentence is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) THE incident which gave rise to the prosecution against the appellant, took place on22.11.1997 at about 08:30 to 09:00 a. m. at Sultanpur, Taluka Mehkar in district Buldana within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Mehkar. THE victim Dilip More was known to witness Nanda (PW-1) who happened to be wife of the appellant, as he was resident of Lonar, in the vicinity of the house of parents of Nanda. After marriage with the appellant, Nanda lived with him and she also lived with him at Sultanpur where he shifted. It appears that the appellant was illtreating Nanda quite often during her stay with him in the matrimonial home and she was subjected to physical harassment as the appellant was suspecting that his wife was having illicit relations with the victim Dilip More. THEre was reason for Nanda to leave the company of the appellant when ill treatment at the hands of the appellant became unbearable. After separation, Nanda started residing with her parents. But, it appears that their separation did not last long as the appellant approached Nanda and he gave promise to behave well and the result was that the witness Nanda resumed cohabitation with the appellant and both started living together at Sultanpur where the appellant shifted.

(3.) WE have heard Shri. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri. Mirza, the learned A. P. P. for the respondent/state. The sum and substance of the submissions of Shri. Daga is that the presence of witness Nanda at the time of occurrence as well as her claim to have witnessed the incident of assault by the appellant on the victim does not stand probable for the reason that admittedly as stated by witness Nanda, after divorce she was residing at her parents' house. It was also submitted that eye witness account by witnesses Suman and Bajabai is far from truth and no weight could be attached to their evidence, having regard to the attending circumstances. Referring to the fact that the victim sustained stab wounds and incised injuries, it is not probable and plausible also, having regard to the fact that the weapon of the assault was one and the same namely the knife. He, therefore, urged that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant for the murder of Dilip More.