NILESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 17.12.2012 in Sessions Trial No. 107/2010, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The appellant/accused has been acquitted of the other offences viz. Sections 376 read with section 511, 379, 403, 507 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as follows :

(3.) DR . (Mrs.) Kalsi with Mr. Chande, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused vehemently submitted that the prosecution case is wholly based on the circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the settled position of law, in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish each and every circumstance against the accused forming a complete chain leaving every hypothesis of innocence of the accused and pointing out a finger towards the accused to show that it is the accused and the accused only, who is the author of the crime. The learned counsel submitted that though, the prosecution alleges bunch of circumstances and the learned trial Court also refers to many circumstances, none of the circumstance is established by the prosecution with a positive evidence. It is further submitted that there are so many missing links in the case of prosecution making the story of the prosecution wholly unreliable and far away from the truth. The learned counsel submits that on such weak evidence, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant/accused is unsustainable. The learned counsel, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal.