DILIP BHOJA PADALKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 2/12/2000 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 99/99, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also canvassed before us.

(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned APP, we have scrutinised the entire record, and re-appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary as is raised on the record before the Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) MS . Usha Andewar was appointed to represent the accused in this case and the Sate was represented by Mrs. V.R.Bhonsale APP. It was the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that there are major inconsistencies in the evidence on record and it is not acceptable and consequently the order of conviction is not sustainable. According to the learned counsel the recoveries of knife, shall etc, is suspicious and are not therefore form part of the conviction. The learned counsel, from the deposition of various witnesses pointed out that there are discrepancies in the evidence which is to be considered and so considered the evidence become unreliable. This submission is countered by the Ld. APP by pointing out that there are no discrepancies and whatsoever view are pointed out are consistent with the fact. The testimony in the court was given after lapse of several months and such inconsistencies or contradictions are natural in normal conduct of life. They are not such as to require disbelieving of the entire evidence. There are cogent reason given by the learned trial Judge who have come to the conclusion of guilty and the evidence as it stands on record is more than adequate to substantiate the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. We have to appreciate this rival contentions in the light of the reappreciation of the evidence that we have done with the assistance of the counsel.