ANANDRAO SITARAM DHANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant takes exception to the judgment dated 29th July 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2007 whereby the appellant-accused No. 1 has been convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 302, 307 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Penal Code). The appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer imprisonment of 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for 10 days for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 3 years in default to suffer imprisonment of 10 days and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence punishable under Section 201 of the Penal Code. Out of the fine amount Rs. 3000/- was directed to be paid to Prakash Anandrao Dhande as compensation. The sentences were to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution as is evident from the material on record is that the Police Patil of village Reveal was informed that the body of a female with injuries on her head was found. This information led to filing of report by concerned Police Patil after which the offence came to be registered. At Shahapur, Jawaharnagar within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bhandara a boy having head injuries was lying below a bridge and this information was given to the police authorities. The injured boy was in an unconscious condition and he was taken to the hospital. The said boy however subsequently could not give details but merely mentioned his name and address. As these incidents were reported in a newspaper, the Investigating Officer of Shahapur made necessary inquiries in which it was revealed that the present appellant along with one Subhash Gajbhiye-accused no. 2 had taken the lady and her son with them after which the dead body of the lady and the injured son were found. After necessary investigation the appellant and accused no. 2 were arrested and offences were duly registered against them. As the offences were triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate committed the trial to the Court of Sessions. On framing charge the appellant as well as accused no. 2 pleaded not to be guilty. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 201 of the Penal Code. However, accused no. 2 Subhash was acquitted of aforesaid offences. As stated above the appellant has challenged his conviction by preferring appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code).

(2.) Shri R.M. Daga, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Ms. F.N. Haidari, learned counsel submitted that the appellant was wrongly convicted by the trial Court. It was submitted that the conviction of the appellant is mainly based on circumstantial evidence. However, the chain of events as required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt has not been so proved by the prosecution. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Vs. State of Kerala, 2010 ALLMR(Cri) 3342(S.C.). It is submitted that even the learned Judge of the trial Court has disregarded the deposition of P.W. 17-Prakash who was the son of deceased-Vimalabai and hence the offence as alleged was not proved against the appellant. It was further submitted that though the prosecution had relied on the report of the Chemical Analyser, this circumstance was not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code. Relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Ishwar Pandurang Masram Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2013 ALLMR(Cri) 2750to which one of us (B.R. Gavai J.) was a party, it was urged that said report could not be taken into consideration.

(3.) Per contra Shri M.K. Pathan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submitted that the appellant was rightly convicted by the trial Court. It was submitted that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of offences for which he was charged and tried. It is submitted that the deposition of P.W. 17-Prakash has not been fully discarded and the same insofar as it relates to involvement of the appellant has been believed by the learned Judge of the trial Court. It is submitted that the Chemical Analyser's report was duly put to the appellant vide Question No. 56 in his examination under Section 313 of the Code. It is further submitted that the seizure of the motorcycle and the clothes of the appellant have been duly proved and the blood stains on said articles match the blood group of the appellant. It is, therefore, submitted that as the prosecution had succeeded in proving the involvement and guilt of the appellant he has been rightly convicted. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.