JAGDISH BANSU KHARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is convicted for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine. He is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code and suffer RI for 2 years and fine.

(2.) The incident of murder of one Sayyed Irfan Ul Huda had taken place on 16.12.2004. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Sayyed was residing alongwith his brothers including the complainant Sayyed Masud Alam (PW1) at Maulana Azad Nagar, Nashik. All the brothers were running a shop viz., M/s.Sunrise Scrap Traders doing the business of scrap material. The appellant was also in the same business. He was residing as a tenant in room No.1 on the upper floor of one Gaurav bungalow owned by the husband of PW10 Minakshi Kale at Shivaji Nagar, Nashik. On 16.11.2004, at around 10 to 10.15am, he was seen by PW10 Minakshi alongwith the deceased. Then she saw him at 3pm to 3.15 pm and again at 5.30pm to 6pm on the same day. PW8, Munna Yadav, was a partner of deceased in the business of scrap material. So the deceased and the appellant knew each othe The deceased was called by the appellant on different timings at 10.30am, then at 3.30pm. PW8, Munna Yadav, met the deceased at around 6 pm and he told him that he would be going for the scrap material to one Popular Company. So he went towards the said Popular Company and waited at the company till about 7.30pm.

(3.) The case is based on the circumstantial evidence. There are not many circumstances but the circumstances which are proved are concrete and sufficient. PW1, Sayyed Alam, the complainant, is the brother of the deceased. He had stated that the appellant alongwith his brother deceased and one Munna Yadav (PW8) was doing business of scrap material. The appellant was also in the same business. They knew the appellant. He had narrated the facts and the things which have taken place on the day of 16.12.2004. From the evidence of PW8 Munna, the prosecution had established that on 16.12.2004, the appellant had met the deceased at 10.30 am, then again at 3.30pm and the appellant was seen alive till around 6pm. At around 6pm, the deceased told PW8 Munna that he would be going to one Popular company to bring some scrap material.