KANARAM BHUIRARAM SHAHU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai at Dindhosi in Sessions Case No. 148/09 thereby convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 452, 302 & 307 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- i/d. to suffer R.I. for one month for offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for causing death of Dipali and Prashant and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each i/d. to suffer R.I. for one month each. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to commit murder of PW1 Lata and PW3 Rahul and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- i/d. to suffer R.I. for one month.

(2.) During the course of investigation, PW7 Rajendra Nikam, PSI visited the spot and drew spot panchanama Exhibit-28 and had seized cricket bat and quilt having stained with blood, under said panchanama. Clothes on the person of PW1 Lata was seized under panchanama Exhibit-21. On effecting arrest of the appellant and on recording statements of witnesses, seized muddemal property came to be forwarded for its analysis to the Chemical Analyser. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned 17th M.M. Court, Borivili, Mumbai. In due course of time, the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

(3.) Charge is framed against the appellant vide Exhibit-3 for offences punishable under Section 452, 302 & 307 of IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. The appellant has also taken an alternate defence of his suffering from insanity. In support of his defence, the appellant has examined himself on oath and DW2 Dr. Amol Jeur. On considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as defence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant as aforestated, hence this appeal.