SARJERAO RAMBHAU MACHALE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, original accused, has impugned the judgment and order dated 14th October 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1993 thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts which give rise to and are necessary to decide the present appeal can briefly be stated thus: - -

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire evidence of the prosecution rests on the testimony of PW No. 4 Satish Sarjerao Machale, the minor son of the appellant and the alleged eyewitness in the present case. He submitted that at the time of recording the evidence of PW No. 4, he was in the custody of his maternal uncle who is a doctor. He further submitted that the prosecution has not brought on record the height of the window from where the PW No. 4 has alleged to have seen the incident. He therefore contended that the conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of this child witness, who according to the learned Counsel for the appellant is not trustworthy. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the alleged extra -judicial confession given to PW No. 1, police patil by the appellant cannot be relied upon as it is given to a police officer. He further submitted that the said alleged extra -judicial confession given by the appellant to the said police patil (PW No. 1) is a very weak piece of evidence and there is no corroboration to the same. He lastly contended that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder, he had undergone treatment and the said fact has been proved by leading the evidence of three defence witnesses who are the doctors, who had treated the appellant prior to the incident and after his arrest also. He further submitted that after the arrest, the appellant immediately moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class which is at Exhibit No. 4 in file No. 5 of record, for his examination by a psychiatrist. The learned Trial Court by order dated 3.9.1992 allowed the said application. He therefore submitted that the appellant was suffering from the mental disorder immediately prior to and after the incident and hence the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code may be extended to him. In short, the learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the plea of "insanity" of the appellant at the time of commission of offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant therefore urged before us that the benefit of doubt may be given to the appellant with the aid of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code and the appellant may be acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.