RAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants - Ram Baban Shinde and Satish alias Khandya Kashinath Bhalekar, who are convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Sessions Case No.57 of 2014 are hereby taking exception to the Judgment and order passed on 20/1/2017 holding both of them guilty for offence under Ss. 302 r/w 120B, 201 r/w 120B and individually 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) Prosecution has come with a case that deceased and accused are common friends of each other. Prior to the incident in question, deceased had extended hand loan of Rs.1,50,000.00 to accused Ram as he was in dire needs of funds. It was agreed that accused Ram would repay the amount on a particular day and therefore, on the said day, deceased Ramesh put up demand. To avoid repayment, it is the case of prosecution, that accused no.1 Ram hatched conspiracy with accused no.2 Satish and took deceased towards spot. He was assaulted by means of iron rod and thereafter, to cause disappearance of the evidence, his dead body was thrown down the bridge. On receipt of information, Police had paid visit to the spot. Even accused Ram visited the spot and some enquiry was made with him by the Investigating Officer, but he was found to be giving incomplete information and evasive answers and therefore, on further interrogation, accused Ram confessed about hatching conspiracy with accused no.2 Satish and committed murder of deceased Ramesh. Therefore, on receipt of such extra judicial confession, crime was registered and after its completion, accused were chargesheeted.

(3.) On behalf of the appellants, leaned Counsel pointed out that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges as there is no direct evidence or incriminating circumstances in support of the case of prosecution. He pointed out that there is no evidence on the point of motive. He pointed out that there is no evidence to show that accused and deceased were in each others company to apply theory of last seen together. He pointed out that alleged extra judicial confession, which is given to a Police Officer, is hit by Ss. 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, learned trial Court ought not to have accepted the case of prosecution. He took us through the evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that their testimonies are not inspiring confidence and they are not lending support to each other. That there is no evidence about so called loan transaction and therefore, it is his submission that with such weak evidence, case of prosecution ought to have discarded, however, learned trial Judge, having failed to do the same, he prays to allow the appeal.