RAJU BALKRISHNA BHISE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 12-10-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 303 of 1995 convicting the appellant-accused under section 302 of Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life this appeal is filed on the ground as mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused.

(2.) THE prosecution story stated briefly is that: on 27-3-1995 around 11. 45 p. m. near Jan Mohamed Street, Lashkar, Pune the accused Raju launched a murderous attack on deceased Razak Makbul Maniyar by knife as a result of the injuries the victim died in the hospital. On a complaint being filed which was registered as first information report investigation was commenced and the accused was prosecuted for the offence of murder. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. The Investigating Officer and other police involved have also been examined amongst those 11 witnesses to prove various documents executed in the presence of witnesses by the police.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence came to the conclusion of guilt and accordingly convicted the accused as aforesaid. It is this order which is impugned in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also canvassed by the learned Advocate Mrs. Agarwal for the appellant. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor we have scrutinized the record and reappreciated the evidence. The submissions made by Mrs. Agarwal to put in nut shell are that (i) the prosecution has not led the correct version of the entire incident before the Court and therefore the evidence is not complete and cannot therefore form basis for such conviction; (ii) the eye-witnesses on which reliance has been placed by the learned Judge are wholly unreliable because of contradictions which were pointed out by her; (iii) even if the prosecution evidence is considered carefully it will be seen that eye-witnesses could not have seen the assault at all and therefore reasonable doubt arises as to who was the assailant. In the absence of any concrete proof that the accused was the assailant conviction is unsustainable in law.