LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-202

VISHNU Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On August 21, 2015
VISHNU Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 86/10, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - and in default to suffer further R.I. for six months and convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default to suffer further R.I. for three months, has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is as under : -

(3.) SHRI Sachin Zoting, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in convicting the appellant. He further submits that the FIR which is registered by PW.10 Shrikant Meshram showing the PW.10 as the first informant is not an FIR in the eyes of law. He submits that PW.10 Shrikant was only a carrier of dying declaration to Police Station. He further submits that the dying declaration written as well as oral is not free from doubt and as such, the conviction only on the basis of dying declaration is not sustainable. He further submits that though the statement of the son of the deceased and appellant was recorded by the police, for the reasons best known to the prosecution the said son has not been examined. He further submits that Shantabai - the maternal aunt of the deceased was also present in the house and she had also sustained certain injuries. He submits that she was the best person to throw light on the incident. However, the prosecution has not examined her. The learned Counsel submits that in the totality of circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the offences charged with.