SHIVAJI PUNJARAM GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has impugned the Judgment and Order dtd. 9/1/2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon in Sessions Case No.72 of 2011, convicting and sentencing, him as under:-

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as under:-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment on several counts. He submitted that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as against the appellant, in particular, since the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. He submitted that the evidence on record would show that neither the date or time, when the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased has been established by the prosecution nor does the postmortem report or the doctor's evidence reveal, as to how many hours prior, Alkabai was assaulted and her dead body thrown in the well. He submitted that merely because the appellant was absconding, the same, cannot be said to be incriminating, more particularly, the same cannot be a ground to convict the appellant. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on the judgments in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v/s State of West Bengal;(2010) 12 SCC 91. Ganesh S/o Madhav Rajpanke v/s The State of Maharashtra;Cri. Appeal No.117 of 2015 decided on 25/4/2022. Digamber Vaishnav and Another v/s State of Chhattisgarh,(2019) 4 SCC 522. and Chandmal and Another v/s State of Rajasthan,(1976) 1 SCC 621.