MOTISINGH SURATSING RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-2-1996 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 259 of 1992, 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.) P .W.1 Rajashri is the complainant who heard about the assault from P.W.3 Sagar, who allegedly a witness of attack and is therefore an eye witness. P.W.2 Ajit Kole is the panch to the recovery and seizure of the clothes of the accused but he has been declared hostile. The inquest panchanama is proved by P.W.4 Dilip. P.W.5 Vaishali is the daughter of the accused who has declared hostile. P.W.6 Shakuntala is also declared hostile. It was the case of the prosecution that it is because of her relationship with the accused that the accused was enraged in attacking the deceased Mahadeo for alleged interference with his affair with Shakuntala. However she has denied the affair. Her denial or acceptance is inconsequential in view of the fact that she has declared hostile. P.ws. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are all declared hostile. P.W.14 is witness Suresh. P.W.15 is the investigating officer on whose evidence heavy reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge for convicting the accused.