MANGESH SUDAM VAYWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 7/4/2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad ('trial Court') in Sessions Case, No. 176 of 2018. Vide the order impugned herein, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder, punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.'), and therefore, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand). In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The fine amount, if recovered, has been directed to be paid to the father of the deceased.

(2.) The case of the prosecution before the trial Court was as follows :- Ajay (deceased) was a student of science stream (B.Sc.) in Milind College at Aurangabad. There was a premises consisting number of rooms. It was being used like a hostel. Room No.11 in the said building, 'Rameshwar' was shared by Ajay and his two friends PW 4 Anil and PW 8 Sachin. Rooms neighbouring to room no.11 had also been occupied by other students, who were Ajay's friends, and even classmates as well.

(3.) Ajay was a good singer. There was a singing program at the university. He alongwith his roommates and others had been to the university. The appellant was admittedly a very close friend and guide of Ajay. He was staying in Pune. On the given day i.e. on 04 th April, 2018 he came to Aurangabad. He was resting in Ajay's room (Room No.11). Ajay, after having sung the song, returned to the room alongwith PW 4 Anil and PW 8 Sachin. When the roommates of Ajay were preparing bed to go to sleep, the appellant asked them to go to sleep in the neighbouring room since he wanted to have some private talk with Ajay. They obliged. As such, Ajay and the appellant were the only persons in the room during the entire intervening night of 04th and 5/4/2018. Ajay had intimate relationship with one Sushma. It appears that the appellant had unrequited love towards the same girl. The same has, however not been disclosed in the prosecution evidence. The appellant would ask Ajay to concentrate on studies and his future career. It appears that the appellant wanted Ajay either to discontinue the relationship with that girl or not jilt with her. According to the prosecution, the appellant tried to convince Ajay overnight. Ajay was not in listening mood. When Ajay was in deep sleep, the appellant strangled him with a rubber belt. Ajay become motionless. He might have breath his last in the room itself. Little past 05:00 in the morning, the appellant left the room. He met PW 5 Ganesh and told him that since Ajay did not listen him, he killed him in the room. Go and see. The appellant then proceeded to Begampura Police Station. Police constables were present. He confessed to have killed Ajay. A station diary entry (Exh.99) was made to that effect.