BHSHAN NARAYAN REDKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case no. 1268 of 1996.

(2.) With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State we have perused the entire evidence and reappreciated the same both oral and documentary as available on record.

(3.) The prosecution story as revealed on reappreciation of evidence stated briefly is that on 22. 6. 1996 two persons visited the flat one Dilip Walecha around 8. 15 in the morning and when they were so waiting for dilip, his wife and two others left the place. When they reached downstairs they were informed by the Watchman that there was some cracking noise probably from the wiring and therefore they rushed to the flat of dilip. At that time two persons seen running from the compound of the building where flat of Shri Walecha was located were apprehended by the people. The wife of Dilip who is examined as P. W. 1 went back to the flat to find her husband Dilip was shot and declared dead in the hospital where he was reached for treatment. Accordingly complaint was lodged and after investigation the appellants in the two above appeals along with two others were prosecuted for conspiring to murder Dilip and factually murdering him after committing criminal trespass in his house with the intent to commit murder. The learned trial judge on appreciation of prosecution evidence which consisted of 17 witnesses and several other documents came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against accused Nos. 3 and 4 but found accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 as also under section 449 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and convicted them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for murder and further rigorous imprisonment for seven years for trespassing. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is this order of conviction and sentence which is separately challenged by both the accused in the above mentioned two appeals. We have to consider the submissions made by the learned Counsel claiming acquittal on the ground of failure of the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. It was also contended that there are gross discrepancies in the prosecution. There is total failure to prove that the accused have done it. The learned public prosecutor however tried to defend the judgment by pointing out that there was adequate cogent evidence to support the order of conviction. We will consider both the submissions in the light of evidence reappreciated earlier with the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused as also for the prosecution.