KISHOR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed dtd. 9/12/2016 in Sessions Case No.52 of 2015, holding present appellant Kishor guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00.

(2.) On 9/9/2015, deceased Angad was playing cards with accused at around 3:00 p.m.. Quarrel took place between accused no.1 Kishor and deceased. At around 5:00 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 came to the spot where deceased was sitting and accused no.1 Kishor stabbed him, whereas other accused beat by stone, fists and kick blows. He was taken to the hospital, but on examination, he was declared dead. His brother PW1 Mukund lodged report resulting into registration of crime, which was investigated by PW12 Bhausaheb and all three accused came to be charge-sheeted and tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, who, on appreciating the evidence, held the charges proved only as against appellant Kishor and accordingly convicted him. Remaining two accused Ramu @ Rameshwar and Chitrabai stood acquitted. The sole convict has now taken exception to the above judgment and order on various grounds raised in the appeal memo. SUBMISSION IN BRIEF On behalf of Appellant :-

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant would submit that, implication and further conviction is in absence of cogent and reliable evidence. He pointed out that on same evidence accused nos.2 and 3 are acquitted, whereas appellant only convicted. He pointed out that, evidence is only of relatives and interested witnesses. No independent witness has been examined. Further, evidence of witnesses are not consistent and are rather full of material omissions, contradictions and therefore, it is his submissions that, conviction recorded is misplaced. He further pointed out that so called witnesses are shown to be away i.e. more than 50 feet from the spot, and therefore, it is doubtful whether they could at all be called as eye witnesses. He further submitted that, seized weapon had no blood stains and further it was not sent for CA analysis. There are several irregularities and major lapses during investigation and therefore, it is his submission that, it was a case of benefit of doubt as case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. On behalf of State : -