GORAKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 1/10/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurbar in Sessions Case No.11 of 2017, convict Gorakh Vitthal Tadavi by invoking Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is questioning the legality, maintainability and sustainability of the conviction.

(2.) Relations between deceased Dwarkabai and appellant Gorakh were strained. Deceased objected drinking habits of Gorakh. According to prosecution, on 1/10/2016 while deceased was working in the field as labour along with informant and others, around 9:00 a.m. appellant came armed with a knife and assaulted Dwarkabai on the waist part. On being taken to hospital, she was examined at Akkalkuwa hospital and declared dead. PW1 Shakilabai set law into motion and on the basis of report lodged by her, crime was registered, which was investigated by PW7 API Ganesh Nhayade. Accused was challaned and tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, who, on appreciation of evidence held accused guilty.

(3.) Questioning the judgment, learned counsel for appellant would submit that, firstly, FIR by PW1 Shakilabai is a translated version and not original complaint. Secondly, FIR is registered after inordinate delay and even copy to the Magistrate is after two days of the occurrence, and therefore, he expressed possibility of concoction and afterthought report. Another ground of attack is that, here prosecution has not proved the very spot of occurrence firmly and cogently and there are distinct spots as per prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that, ocular account material defers from medical account as according to him witness speak about assault on back, but there is no injury on such part. Further, medical expert, on examination of weapon reported the weapon to be double edged, however nature of injuries does not tallying with the said weapon. He further submitted that, even size of the injury does not tallying with the length and width of the weapon and therefore the weapon which allegedly to be seized cannot be connected to the death of Dwarkabai.