SHESHRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2015, thereby convicting both appellants for offence punishable under sec. 302 read with sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), instant appeal has been preferred by invoking sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

(2.) To put it in brief, in trial court prosecution was launched against present appellants on the premise that, on 7/8/2015, around 3:00 to 3:30 p.m., they assaulted deceased Yuvraj with iron rod/stick causing him several injuries. On being shifted and admitted to the hospital at Ausa, while undergoing treatment, he expired in the evening around 7:00 p.m. and therefore his son PW1 Samadhan, after funeral, lodged crime against appellants at Bhada Police Station. Investigation was carried out and appellants were charge-sheeted and on denial of charge were tried. On conclusion of trial, after hearing both sides and on appreciating the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge held charges proved and awarded life imprisonment to both appellants, which is now assailed before us.

(3.) In support of its case, prosecution seems to have adduced evidence of in all 10 witnesses and documentary evidence like FIR, inquest, PM and spot panchanama etc. On re-appreciating and re-evaluating the evidence by prosecution in trial court, it is revealed that, FIR is by son, but he is not a witness. After interacting with his father i.e. on receipt of oral dying declaration, crime was registered. However, prosecution claims that, there are two witnesses, who had allegedly seen the occurrence i.e. PW2 Lalasaheb and PW7 Jagannath. Rest are medical expert, panchas and Investigating Officer etc. Therefore, we propose to visit, analyze and discuss so called direct eye witnesses.