SANJAY VITTHAL PACHAGHARE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by which the appellant-accused no.1-Sanjay Vitthal Pachaghare was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, the present appeal was filed by the appellant-accused in this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused Sanjay married with Vandana, daughter of Kaniram Sonar, on 24th June,1991. Vandana was serving as a Teacher at village Benoda while the appellant was serving as a Teacher at Chandur Railway. Due to her employment, Vandana was residing at Benoda village in a rented house and the appellant-Sanjay used to visit Benoda once in a week. After the marriage, Vandana visited her parents on two occasions, at the time of Nagpanchami and Diwali and she had complained to them that Sanjay was suspecting her character and used to raise quarrel with her and was assaulting her on that count.

(3.) In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of offence of murder when there is no direct evidence in the case. On the contrary, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, PW 3-Rangrao Akhare, who had lodged a report (Ex.43) to the police Station was the first person to visit the spot of incident and not only that he is an independent witness, who also stated that he was the Special Judicial Magistrate and he was residing near the house of accused. He stated that the door of the house was closed from inside and it was latched from inside. It was Dhanraj, who climbed on the roof of the house and then he removed tiles of the roof and poured water in the house and thereafter opened the door from inside. He further stated that at that time the appellant-Sanjay and his father Vitthal, both were in the field and the distance between their house and the field is about 2 kms. The counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that there was remote possibility of presence of appellant in the house at the time of the incident of burning and there is no reason whatsoever for believing that the appellant committed murder by burning the deceased Vandana. The prosecution evidence itself is very clear that the appellant was in the field and his father was also in the field at the time of the incident. The trial Court ought to have extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant rather than convicting him for the serious offence of murder on mere surmises and conjectures.