SATYENDRAKUMAR L SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is challenging the judgment and order dated 29-5-2002 passed by the second Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in sessions Case No. 314 of 2001. By the said judgment and order, the appellants were convicted under sections 304, 506 (II) read with section 34 of the indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 10 years and one year respectively.

(2.) PROSECUTION's case is that the deceased, accused and some other workmen were sleeping on the terrace of the factory where they were working. Brother of the deceased woke up at night to answer the call of nature. At that time, he found that his bag was missing. He woke up his brother Raju and accused No. 1 and told them that his bag was missing. Accused No. 1 also realised that his bag was also missing. Accused No. 1 and 2 suspected that raju had stolen the bag and they therefore, started beating Raju with pestry rollers and wire. According to Ajaykumar - P. W. 5, they assaulted Raju continuously and, as aresult, Raju died at about 10. 30 a. m. to 11. 00 a. m. Doctor was called to declare that Raju was dead. A complaint was filed. Both the accused were arrested. A charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court convicted the accused on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that conflicting versions have been given by the prosecution witnesses about the place and time when the incident in question had occurred. He further stated that the ocular evidence given by the eye-witnesses was not supported by the medical evidence. He submitted that, according to the eyewitnesses, the alleged incident had taken place between 4. 30 a. m. to 10. 30 a. m. in the morning whereas, according to the doctor who performed the post-mortem, injuries which were found on the person of the deceased were caused about 12 to 18 hours before the post-mortem commenced. He submitted that the post-mortem had commenced at 4. 30 p. m. and, therefore, the injuries were caused to the deceased either at 4. 30 p. m. on the earlier day or between 10. 30 a. m. to 4. 30 p. m. on the earlier day. He submitted that the evidence of the watchman also does not support the prosecution case as he has stated that the accused had come along with the deceased at 6. 00 a. m. in the factory and they had gone to the terrace. He further submitted that the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and the witnesses who had deposed against the accused were interested witnesses.