DATTATRAYA SHRIRANG DESAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, original accused, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present Appeal, thereby challenging the judgment and order dated 19 April 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.379 of 2006, convicting the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The facts which emerged from the record and which can be summarized briefly be stated thus :

(2.) After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit 2A. The said charge was read over to the Appellant. However, the Appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2, 5, 6, 8 and 9, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances as propounded by the prosecution is complete He has, therefore, submitted that the circumstances, as put forth by the prosecution, that the Appellant was having strong motive to commit the act and some bloodstains were found on his pant (trouser) are the only circumstances against the Appellant and the same are very weak in nature. He has further submitted that the prosecution has failed to determine the blood group of the Appellant and the bloodstains which were found on the clothes of the Appellant cannot be said to be of the deceased only as the Chemical Analyzer has given a report to the effect that the blood group of the deceased was found to be inconclusive. Counsel for the Appellant therefore submitted that as the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, the Appellant may be given a benefit of doubt. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order and prayed that the present Appeal may be dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant should be upheld.

(3.) In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Mr. Sarpande, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Dedhia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, it would be useful to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.