HITESH RATAN KHOBRAGADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/accused take exception to the judgment and order dated 15 -9 -2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No. 101/2008, thereby convicting them for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that accused No. 1 was having illicit relations with accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 is widow of deceased Sumed. Accused No. 2 and deceased Sumed had begotten three children. On 25 -6 -2008 the accused were in the house of deceased Sumed between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. The accused No. 1 and deceased Sumed consumed liquor and had dinner. Soon thereafter, deceased Sumed started vomiting. P.W.2 Motilal, cousin of deceased Sumed, after hearing hue and cry, rushed there and saw kids and accused No. 2 weeping. It was also noticed that deceased Sumed had vomited certain material from stomach. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Motilal (P.W.2) called for the Doctor, who first refused to come and on second request, he came. On examination, he found Sumed to be dead. P.W.2 Motilal, therefore, lodged first information report with Police Station.

(3.) SHRI Daga, learned Counsel for the appellants/accused, submits that the finding of the learned trial Judge that incriminating circumstances were proved against the accused and that the circumstances proved formed a complete chain to point the guilt of the accused is not sustainable. It is contended that so far as illicit relations of accused are concerned, the finding of the learned trial Judge on the basis of evidence of P.W.2 Motilal and P.W.7 Meerabai is also not sustainable. It is further submitted that alleged discovery on memorandum under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is not proved inasmuch as panch PW 6 Arvind Bankar has not supported the prosecution case in cross -examination. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the order of conviction is not sustainable in law.