PREMSING Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, convict is taking exception to the judgment and order of his conviction dtd. 8/8/2003 passed by First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.51 of 2003 i.e. for offence punishable under sec. 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) Prosecution story runs thus, complainant was married to one Pramodkumar Shrivastav. He was addicted to liquor. Present accused, who was acquainted with Pramodkumar, assured to maintain complainant properly as his wife and therefore she along with her two children spent time in Raipur for four years. Subsequently, accused sold her to one Pandit with intention to involve her in immoral business. She managed to escape from the clutches of said Pandit and came back to reside with accused. But, when she reached his house, he had left his village to join the armed forces. After five months, he returned and took complainant and her children to Pune to his nephew's place. While traveling from Pune by the train, he pushed complainant from the train. She fell down, became unconscious and found herself admitted in the hospital at Jalgoan. There she gave report at Exh.14, on the basis of which, crime was registered, it was investigated by PW4 PSI Chaudhari and accused was chargesheeted for commission of offence under sec. 307 of IPC before first Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, where trial was conducted vide Sessions Case No. 51 of 2003, which ended up his conviction.

(3.) Taking exception to the above judgment and order, learned counsel for appellant submitted that, prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. That, apart from delayed FIR, there is no corroboration to the sole testimony of complainant. According to learned counsel, at the first count, there is no evidence suggesting accused taking victim informant for traveling and further he pushing or throwing her out of running train with intention to commit her murder. He submitted that, there is no evidence about any journey also being taken by informant with the company of appellant. He pointed out that, children are not examined. Moreover, there is dispute between complainant and accused for the custody of children. Therefore, there is every possibility of false implication. According to learned counsel, essential ingredients for attracting sec. 307 of IPC are not available in the prosecution evidence, and therefore, conviction recorded by the learned trial court to be in absence of convincing evidence and resultantly he prays to allow the appeal.