RINKU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 17.11.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 355/2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appeal has been preferred by appellant.

(2.) In support of the appeal, Mr. Jaltare, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the incident is said to have occurred at about 7.00 A.M. at the house of the appellant where even according to the prosecution the deceased Rajesh accompanied by 3-4 persons had arrived and started quarreling with the appellant, Saraswatibai and Meena. the mother and sister of deceased Rajesh. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that mother of the deceased and his sister had left the house of deceased Rajesh and had come to reside with the appellant in his house after appellant and his brother were driven out by the deceased from his house. In the morning of the fateful day, the deceased wanted to take his mother and sister to his house but then he came along with 3-4 persons and started quarreling particularly when neither the mother of the deceased nor his sister were willing to accompany the deceased Rajesh to reside with him. The evidence of the alleged eye witness and the informant Sandeep (PW4), if carefully seen will clearly show that the same is wholly unbelievable and uncorroborated. The evidence of other witness by name Raj Yadav (PW6) also clearly shows that the prosecution story is self contradictory and unbelievable. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the trial Court ignored the material inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and then convicted the appellant for the offence of murder, which is wholly illegal. He then submitted that the trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the appellant since the prosecution did not prove its case. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant Rinku along with others had taken the deceased to the hospital of Dr. Ravekar first and thereafter to Suretech Hospital which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. He finally prayed for reversal of the judgment of conviction.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. R.S. Nayak, learned A.P.P. for respondent-State, supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction. The learned A.P.P. argued that the trial Judge has based the order of conviction on the ocular evidence of two witnesses namely; Sandeep (PW4) and Raj Yadav (PW6) besides other corroborative evidence and, therefore, no fault could be found out with the impugned judgment of conviction. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.