KASAM HASAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the Adhoc Additional Session Judge 6, Pune, convicting the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay to fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default R.I. for three months. The accused has committed murder of his wife Jamila on 19.3.2005 at Chakan, Taluka Khed, District Pune. The accused was residing with his wife Jamila at Chakan and was working as a labourer. Their married life was not smooth but used to quarrel often. The deceased went to her parents house to stay and came back with her husband after six months. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of the incident i.e., on 19.3.2005 on Hanif Yusuf Sayyed, the complainant, the brother of Jamila, saw the accused in the morning at about 6.45 a.m. when he was going towards the market to sell his articles in the weekly Bazar at Chakan. He noticed the accused with one baggage. As he was busy attending his business at the weekly bazaar, he did not enquire or talk with the accused. He was occupied with his business till 7 - 7.30 p.m. As he returned home, he received a telephone call from the accused. The accused told him on phone that there was a quarrel between Jamila and him so he killed his wife by inflicting injuries to her with knife. He also disclosed that the dead body was lying behind the wooden cupboard in the house and also disclosed that he threw the saree of his wife, his own clothes and the knife into the river. On receiving this call, he narrated this incident to three persons, namely, Dhananjay Ganpat Kadam, Ismail Allibaboo Sayyed and Kalpesh Anantrao Bhoir. They all went to the house of the accused. The room was locked. They broke open the lock and they found blood stains all over the floor and as informed by the accused, the dead body of Jamila was lying behind the wooden cupboard, in an injured condition. Her clothes were also stained with blood. Thereafter, the complainant rushed to the police station and lodged FIR. The police went to the spot and drew spot Panchanama and in the course of investigation, they arrested the accused on 25.3.2005, the accused made disclosure in respect of the place where he had hidden the saree, his clothes and the knife. Accordingly, the police with panchas drew discovery panchanama and pursuant to that, the knife as well as the articles were recovered from a ditch. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses including the panchas, who carried out the spot panchanama and also the statements of other witnesses, collected the postmortem notes and thereafter, filed charge-sheet.

(2.) After committal, the case was tried before the Adhoc Sessions Judge 6, Pune and the trial had concluded in the conviction of the accused. Hence, this Appeal.

(3.) The prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence and mainly on extra judicial confession of the accused. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that there is no eye witness and there are certain contradictions in the evidence. He further pointed out that PW 6, who is the panch witness to the recovery panchanama, did not support the prosecution. These are the many inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution and chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete.