SITARAMJI PUNDALIKRAO DABHADE Vs. CHAKRADHAR SADASHIVRAO DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

(2.) IN regard to murder of Champabai w/o Pundlikrao, accused / non applicant no.1 Chakradhar Dubey was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 26/1997 for offence under section302 of INdian Penal code and the learned Judge by the judgment and order dated1-3-2000 acquitted him and hence the said acquittal is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the applicant Sitaramji Dabhade who is son of deceased Champabai.

(3.) MR. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the prosecution has been highly negligent in conducting the case in as much as relevant and material evidence was not led though it was available. Deceased died homicidal death and her body was found in the house in the heap of cotton. During the course of investigation the clothes of accused non applicant no.1 were seized and it was found that the clothes were stained with blood. That was most incriminating a circumstance showing complicity of the accused. But these articles were not sent to Chemical Analyser for examination. That was very serious defect in the investigation, as a result of which the prosecution was deprived of material circumstantial evidence. Said illegality has caused miscarriage of justice in a case where the accused was facing trial for offence of Murder. The learned counsel submitted that the trial court ought to have directed the prosecution to send the articles seized to the Chemical Analyser for examination. That was the proper step which the trial court ought to have taken in the in the interest of justice. 5-A. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution in correct perspective. The trial court has committed serious error and illegality in discarding the evidence. The trial court has failed to take into consideration that although the case was resting on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence showing complicity of the accused, there was clinching evidence in the nature of circumstances which are firmly established showing complicity of the accused and that the circumstances are wholly consistent with the inference of the guilt of the accused and that the circumstances are wholly inconsistent with the inference of innocence of the accused. The trial court has ignored the evidence of witness - Madhuri (P.W.4) when she claimed that the accused and Smt. Shobha (since deceased - accused ) were last seen with the deceased Champabai between 2. 00 p. m. to 5. 00 p. m. on10-11-1989 at the house of complainant - Sitaram and thereafter, deceased Champabai was found missing. The trial court has committed grave error in ignoring the fact that the accused and Shobhabai (since deceased ) had every opportunity to commit murder of victim Champabai in the house. The trial court discarded the fact that the accused - Chakradhar was alone and no one else who had first pointed out the dead body of deceased Champabai which was lying in the heap of cotton. The trial court has committed error in rejecting the evidence of Dog Handler - Eknath (P.W.3) though the fact that the sniffer dog named Rama did bark on going close to the accused who were standing in a row for identification. The trial court has discarded the evidence of prosecution witnesses giving much weight to minor contradictions and omissions in their evidence without defence proving them by examining the investigating officer. It is submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is manifestly erroneous and that the trial court has acted with material illegality and that the evaluation of evidence by the trial court is much as to shock the sense of justice and as such it has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He therefore, urged that the revision application be allowed and the order of acquittal be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial court for further enquiry and also for recording additional evidence if necessary by giving prosecution reasonable opportunity to establish the case against the accused.