JITENDRA MADHUKAR GHUNTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24 February 2009, delivered by the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, convicting the appellant who was an accused in Sessions case No. 95 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge, of an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years, and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. I have heard Mr. Sandesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mrs. R.V. Newton, learned APP for the State.

(2.) With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the evidence adduced during the trial.

(3.) In the course of arguments, it was conceded that the correctness of the conviction, as recorded by the Trial Court, was not being seriously disputed. As such, I do not wish to discuss the evidence adduced during the trial in details. It is sufficient to state that the evidence of the First Informant Amit Ghunte (PW 6), the evidence of the victim Anil Ghunte (PW 12), the evidence of Dr. Virendrasingh Pawar (PW 14) and the evidence of the Investigating Officer Anandrao Khobre (PW 15) is the crucial evidence in the case. The learned Sessions Judge had doubts about the truth of the version of the First Informant Amit Ghunte, but he accepted the evidence of the victim Anil Ghunte, as reliable. On going through the evidence of the said witness, the appreciation thereof, as done by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be proper. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Anandrao Pawar (PW 15). Thus, appreciation of evidence as done by the learned Sessions Judge, appears to be proper and legal.