BHASKAR JANU KHADME Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-original accused no.1 by the present appeal has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22 February 2005 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.239 of 2003, thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It has further been ordered that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellant along with original accused no.2 Smt.Ramibai Janu Khadme i.e. the mother of the appellant were charged with offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Gangaram Nagu Kokre and causing grievous hurt to PW-7 Dhau Shingade on 4.7.2003 approximately at about 11.30 pm. The original accused no.2 Smt. Ramibai Janu Khadme was acquitted from all the charges by the learned Trial Court by the present judgment and order dated 22.2.2005.

(2.) Brief facts which are be enumerated from the record can be stated thus:

(3.) We have heard Shri Shrikant Gavand the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri H.J. Dedhia, the learned APP for the State at length. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the discovery of the weapon as per Exhibit 61 the Seizure panchanama, is made by the police from the same spot i.e. from the very place where the incident had occurred and the police had visited the said spot while conducting the inquest panchama on deceased Gangaram and therefore the discovery of the said knife at the instance of the appellant vitiates. He further submitted that on the day of incident, there was neither the moonlight nor there was any light which would entail PW-1 Govind and injured witness PW-7 Dhau Shingade to identify the appellant. In support of his contention, he relied upon almanac of the year 2003-2004. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no evidence at all to connect the appellant with the crime in question. He therefore submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted. Per contra, the learned APP for the State supported the impugned judgment and order and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.