SATISH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convict for offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC], is hereby assailing the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai dtd. 15/2/2021 in Special POCSO Case No. 08/2017 which was tried for the offences punishable under Ss. 307, 326, 354-A, 341, 504 of IPC, Ss. 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act] and Ss. 3(1)/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on being challaned by Parali City Police Station.

(2.) Appellant was chargesheeted on the premise that, victim was a student. He used to tease her, follow her and therefore victim's uncle passed the information to the parents of accused, who gave him understanding. However, on 23/1/2017, when victim was going along with her friend, appellant intercepted her way, made her fall down and thereafter inflicted knife blows causing her grievous injuries. She was shifted to various hospitals and FIR was lodged on the basis of which crime bearing no. 38 of 2017 was registered which was investigated by PW8 API Kale and on completion of investigation, appellant was duly chargesheeted and tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, who accepted the case of prosecution and convicted the appellant as spelt out in the operative part of the order which is now assailed before us on various grounds raised in the appeal memo.

(3.) Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously submit that apparently it is false implication as there is no convincing, cogent and reliable evidence. He would submit that there is overwhelming evidence to show that appellant was a lunatic and in such state of mind, alleged occurrence has taken place. That, such crucial aspect has not been correctly appreciated by learned trial court. That, except interested testimony of friend, there is no other independent eye witness account. That, father of victim was in service of police department and therefore possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. He would point out that statement of victim is not recorded promptly, nor statement of her so called friend is recorded by the IO Officer promptly in spite of availability. That, history is about being stabbed by 'somebody'. That, learned trial court has not considered and appreciated the answers given by the prosecution witnesses while under cross. That, even there are suspicious circumstances on the point of so called recovery of articles from the spot. Further, according to him, even spot is shown by informant who has hearsay information. Prosecution though claims that stone was handled by appellant, same is not recovered. Even prosecution could not demonstrate to whom the alleged footwear lying on the scene of occurrence belonged to. Further, according to him, none of the medical experts has given information about the case to be MLC. Doctor failed to give measurement of the injuries. Resultantly, for all above reasons, it is his submission that learned trial court ought not to have accepted the case of prosecution and ought not to have held appellant guilty and so he seeks indulgence of this court for setting aside the impugned judgment.