RAHUL JAGGULAL VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dtd. 6/10/2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.499 of 2016. Besides the Appellant, there was one more accused, accused No.2 Girishchandra Shambhu Mishra. He was acquitted from all the charges in the trial. The Appellant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under sec. 302 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default to suffer imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted for commission of the offences punishable under Sec. 392 and Sec. 397 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off U/s.428 of the Cr.p.c. was given to the Appellant for the period of detention undergone by him during the investigation and trial of the case. The valuable articles recovered were already handed-over to the first informant under the bond dtd. 4/1/2016. That bond was continued further till the Appeal period was over.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the Appellant was working in a laundry. He used to go to the house of the deceased for collecting and delivering the laundry. The name of the deceased was Satishchandra Dravid. The family of the deceased consisted of his wife, daughter and a grand daughter who were staying together with the deceased. One month prior to the incident, the deceased had complained to the laundry owner about the Appellant's behaviour. The laundry owner, on his part, had removed the Appellant from his service because he had found that the Appellant was addicted to consuming ganja. However, subsequently, he reinstated the Appellant in his service showing leniency. The incident had occurred on 17/9/2015. The family of the deceased had gone to attend a family function at some other place. The deceased was alone in the house. It is the prosecution case that the Appellant entered the house of the deceased and committed his murder by stabbing him with a knife and assaulting him with a chair. There are allegations that the Appellant removed gold ornaments consisting of four bangles, mangalsutra, ring etc. He also removed cash of Rs.4000.00 from the cupboard. The family of the deceased returned home at around 8:15p.m. in the night. The deceased was seen in a pool of blood with a knife in his neck. His daughter immediately called the police by dialing the number 100. The F.I.R. was lodged and the investigation was started.

(3.) The police seized the CCTV footage of the society building between 12:00p.m. to 5:00p.m. The Appellant was seen entering the society and leaving the society around 3:00p.m. to 4:00p.m. He was arrested on suspicion. He led the police to his laundry from where the ornaments and cash were recovered. His clothes and footwear were seized. The articles were sent for chemical analyzer's examination. On the completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No.2 who was the Watchman of the society, gave details about the whereabouts of the family of the deceased to facilitate the commission of the murder when the deceased was alone in the house. However, during trial after the evidence was led, it was observed that there was no evidence against the Accused No.2 and he was acquitted. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial. The learned trial Judge considered all these aspects and convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned earlier.