BALIRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 19th April, 2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 1999, by which the appellant -Accused No. 1 -Baliram was convicted of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, the present appeal was filed by the appellant -Accused No. 1 -Baliram.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, it is the case of the prosecution that Vatsala wife of Shriram Sushir [PW 1], her deceased husband -Shriram Kisan Sushir and one of their daughters Ujwala [PW 3] were residing at village Belkhed and they had undertaken construction of a courtyard wall.

(3.) IN support of the appeal, learned Adv. Mr. S.R. Deshpande vehemently argued that the learned Trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of Ujwala [PW 3], the daughter of the deceased and believed the evidence of Vatsala [PW 1]. According to him, the reasons for disbelieving Ujwala [PW 3] ought to have been applied for disbelieving Vatsala [PW 1] and, therefore, it was wrong to believe the testimony of Vatsala [PW 1]. He further argued that the prosecution case ultimately rests on the single testimony of Vatsala [PW 1], i.e., the widow of the deceased, who, being the interested and related witness to the deceased, could not be believed and her evidence was required to be rejected. Mr. Deshpande then submitted that the prosecution case was liable to be rejected on other reason also, namely that the neighbours had gathered on the spot and no independent neighbour was examined to prove the case of the prosecution, instead of relying on the version of interested witness. The prosecution must be blamed for not examining independent witnesses and in that case the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant. At any rate, according to Mr. Deshpande, the evidence of Vatsala [PW 1] clearly shows material improvement in her evidence, namely that she deposed that blood started oozing from the mouth and nose of her husband Shriram, which was an important omission in the FIR as well as police statement dated 11th February, 1999, apart from the fact that her statement was recorded so late for which the prosecution did not offer any explanation. Mr. Deshpande then submitted that the Trial Court did not consider the legal position regarding appreciation of evidence of interested witness as pronounced in number of judgments. To substantiate his arguments, learned Adv. Mr. Deshpande relied on the following judgments: -