MAJID YUSUF SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 2. 2. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 1310 of 1998 wherein he was convicted for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo R. I. for one year.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus: on 14. 1. 1998 at about 11. 15 a. m. dispute occurred between P. W. 1 Nagan the complainant, the appellant and one Sanjay Nepali on the basis of earlier dispute that has arisen a couple of days prior to the incident. On that day a person who was with the complainant had intervened in the mater between the Complainant Nagan, the accused and Sanjay Nepali. It was the case of the prosecution that after the intervention Sanjay Nepali pushed aside Manoj Kaundar. Said Manoj fell down and thereafter the present accused lifted the washbasin from the shop nearby and hit it on the head of Manoj, as a result thereof the deceased collapsed. He was hospitalized but succumbed to his injuries. A complaint came to be lodged by complainant P. W. 1 Nagan and offence was registered against the Accused. The present accused was arrested, however, his accomplice Sanjay Nepali was never traced and reported absconding. After the death of the deceased inquest panchnama was made and his body was sent to the post mortem examination. The panchnama of scene of incident was also prepared. The washbasin, which said to be the weapon of offence, was also seized at the time of panchanama of the spot. The statement of several witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation the charge sheet was sent to the court of law. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability. The prosecution led its evidence. On which basis the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused for murder of deceased and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in aforesaid manner. Hence the appeal.