SURESH Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th November, 2009, passed by the learned Ad -hoc Additional Sessions Judge -3, Latur, by which the learned trial Judge has convicted the Appellant -Suresh for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appeal has been filed by him.

(2.) IN support of the appeal, Mr. Dhengale, learned counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution case is based on sole eye witness PW -10 -Pratiksha, a small girl of aged 12 years and the trial Judge ought to have rejected her evidence. He has submitted that the girl had no reason to come to village Niwali from the place of her parents namely at Surat and therefore, her presence as an eye witness is only doubtful. He has submitted that in absence of any corroboration to her testimony, it was highly risky to convict the Appellant -Accused for the serious offence of murder. He has submitted that except the quarrel between husband and wife, there was no other material brought on record for commission of the alleged offence of murder of wife Chitra. He has further submitted that as there is no offence of murder proved by the prosecution, ultimately the offence would be brought down, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Per contra, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the judgment is based on evidence and no interference is necessary.

(3.) WE have considered the arguments advanced before us by the learned counsel for the rival parties. We have seen the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge for recording the finding of conviction. We find that the case of prosecution is based on the sole testimony of PW -10 -Pratiksha. We also find that she is a child witness. We have read her evidence carefully to find out whether there is any scope for raising doubt of truthfulness of her evidence. We have seen her cross -examination made by the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for other accused persons. From perusal of the cross -examination, we find that infact it has been categorically brought on record that the girl PW -10 -Pratiksha came alongwith Chitra, the deceased, to her house at Niwali. Not only that, in answers to the questions in his 313 statement, the Appellant has candidly admitted that PW -10 -Pratiksha had come to the place of Chitra, the deceased. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that it was impossible that PW -10 -Pratiksha who have come from Surat in the month of June in the house of Chitra.