MAHAYA CHAITYA OZARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar on 20. 11. 2000 in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1997, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

(2.) WITH the assistance of learned counsel and the learned Assistant Public prosecutor we have scrutinized and reappreciated the evidence on the record on the basis of which the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion of conviction.

(3.) THE prosecution story as it emerges from our reappreciation of evidence stated briefly is that on 24. 2. 1997 the accused came to the house of the complainant and threatened (he deceased to leave the village. In the afternoon they came back and assaulted the victim with wooden sticks. They also abused the deceased as a result of which assault the deceased fell to the ground and accused thereafter ran away. It is the case of the prosecution that after the victim was killed he was hanged by rope to the tamarind tree nearby and they the accused left the place. First Information Report was lodged on the next day. Investigation was carried, accused were arrested and on completion of investigation accused were prosecuted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case that it was the accused who committed murder. Accepting mis evidence me learned trial Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and punished the accused as aforesaid. It is this order of conviction which is impugned in mis appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before us. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel appealing on behalf of the appellant that the order of conviction is illegal and therefore unsustainable in law. Admittedly recovery of weapon i. e. stick is not proved. The eye witnesses who say mat the stick was used categorically state that the stick was not the one shown to them. Delay in lodging the F. L. R. is inordinate and wholly unexplained The stick that has been seized has no blood stains and there are gross inconsistencies in the testimony of three eye witnesses. He therefore contended mat the prosecution having miserably failed to prove the involvement of the accused me learned trial Judge could not have convicted the appellants. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor defended the order of conviction and submitted that P. W. 3 - Tulsi the wife of the deceased is the eye witness. There is no reason why she would state falsehood The discrepancies are not very serious and therefore the order of conviction is liable to be maintained