REKHA SITARAM CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, original accused, has preferred the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 11th May 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.672 of 2010, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For three months. The appellant has questioned the correctness of the said impugned judgment and order dated 11th May 2012.

(2.) The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus:

(3.) Heard Mr. Aniket Vagal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. A.S. Pai, learned APP for the respondentState. We have carefully scrutinized the record and also the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that, from the evidence on record it is clear that in the intervening night of 6th July 2010 and 7th July 2010, the appellant was not at her residence and the said fact is clear from the testimony of PW12 Kusum Ubhedal. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there was no evidence at all to show that the appellant was at any point of time last seen together in the company of the deceased Sitram from 6.7.2010 to 7.7.2010 till she noticed the dead body of Sitaram. He also submitted that the prosecution has clearly failed to establish the motive behind the present crime. He has further submitted that, though the police carried out spot panchanama on 7.7.2010, police did not find the said flat grinding stone in the said small house. However on 11.7.2010, the police recovered the said stone at the instance of Appellant, which was just behind the main door of the said house. He therefore submitted that the said discovery at the instance of the appellant is of no consequence and the said piece of evidence cannot be relied upon. He therefore urged before us that, taking into consideration the absolutely weak legal evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution, the present appeal may be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant may be quashed and set aside. The learned APP for the respondentState on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that there is a motive for the appellant to commit the present crime, as the deceased Sitaram was causing illtreatment to the appellant under the influence of liquor and there used to be frequent quarrel between them. She further submitted that the evidence of PW16 also demonstrates that there was an affair between the appellant and PW16 Ganesh Bhosle and deceased Sitaram was suspecting about the fidelity of the appellant and this was also motive for the appellant to commit the crime. She further submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record which connects the appellant as perpetrator of the present crime. Learned APP therefore submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order, correctly and prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed.