MANGESH RAJARAM SAWANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-original accused assails the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2005, convicting him for committing the murder of his wife Noori @ Manisha Mangesh Sawant on 29th January, 2005 in between 1.30 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. According to prosecution, PW-1 Ankush Sitaram Bhosale, the resident of Jogeshwari, Mumbai was the maternal uncle of deceased Noori @ Manisha. The deceased Noori @ Manisha was born out of the wedlock of sister of PW-1, by name Kumud @ Fatima Hasan Shaikh, who had a love marriage with one Hassan Shaikh and she was residing at Prem Nagar, Jogeshwari. Kumud @ Fatima and Hassan had shifted to Nalasopara (E) about six months prior to the incident.

(2.) The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh. 2) framed against him by the Court of Sessions for the offence of murdering of wife Noori @ Manisha, after the case was committed to the said Court. The prosecution examined in all six witnesses at the trial, i.e., the five witnesses referred hereinabove and additionally PW-2 Rupashree Karandekar, neighbour from adjacent Room No. 3 to the appellant. The defence of the appellant was of total denial and false implication. Significantly enough, the appellant during his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was residing alongwith deceased in the Room in which the corpse was found and PW-2 was residing in adjacent room. The trial Court after assessment of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that Noori @ Manisha had met with homicidal death and the appellant had committed her murder by throttling her neck and in-consonance with such finding arrived, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier.

(3.) Mr. Dhopatkar, the learned appointed counsel for the appellant urged that there is no eye-witness to the crime in-question. He urged that the trial Court has rested the conviction upon circumstantial evidence. He contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances relied by the trial Court by cogent evidence. It was contended that the said circumstances does not form a complete chain establishing the guilt of the appellant. It was further urged that the trial Court erred in taking on record the inquest panchanama (Exh. 17) and spot panchanama (Exh. 15) without the prosecution examining the panch witnesses. It was urged that in absence of any explanation advanced by the prosecution for non-examination of the panch witnesses, reliance placed by the prosecution upon the matters stated in the said panchanamas on the basis of evidence of Investigating officer, who is an interested witness was wholly improper. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance that the body of deceased was found in the matrimonial house as claimed by another interested witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-3. It was urged that as the circumstances relied by the prosecution were not established by cogent independent evidence, the same deserves to be discarded and the appellant deserves to be acquitted or atleast deserves to be given benefit of doubt, by allowing the appeal preferred by him.