LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-95

MUNNA SINGH RAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On August 04, 2023
Munna Singh Rampal Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present Appeal is to Judgment and Order dtd. 5/5/2014 passed in Sessions Case No.124 of 2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, whereby Appellant/accused is convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short " IPC ") and directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00. In default of payment of fine, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, on 23/10/2011, Shri. Vilas Bhabal, Assistant Sub-Inspector at Khar Police Station received information that, one person was lying in injured condition in Metropolitan Building, Nargis Dutt Road, Mumbai. After receiving information, he reached the spot where he noticed, one person was lying in parking place of that building in unconscious condition having bleeding injuries. The injured person was taken to Bhabha Hospital. Upon examination, Doctor declared him dead. Shri Vilas Bhabal made inquiry with Shri Brijlal Benbans (PW-1), watchman of Metropolitan Building. As per the statement of Shri Brijlal, the injured was assaulted by Appellant - Munnasingh @ Patel with knife and ran away from the gate of building. On the basis of the statement of Shri Brijlal, police registered FIR under Sec. 302 of the IPC against the Appellant. Consequent to registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out by Investigating Officer. Appellant was arrested. On his disclosure statement under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, his blood stained clothes and knife used in the offence were seized by the police in presence of panchas by preparing panchanama.

(3.) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Appellant. The case was committed to the Sessions Court at Greater Mumbai. Upon committal of case, charge for the above stated offence was framed against Appellant. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.