NIRMALDAS RATAN ALHAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2001, convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life, the appellant above- named has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the Memo of Appeal, as also canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused, and the learned additional Public Prosecutor, we have appreciated the evidence on record; and the prosecution story, as it emerges therefrom, is that the accused was the husband of the deceased, and they had certain bickerings and misunderstandings about each other. According to the prosecution, on 9th January, 2001, the accused, along with the victim, went to agricultural field called "taliche shet", where the accused allegedly killed the victim, Sangita, by inflicting blows of sickle on her person. After so assaulting her, the accused returned to his house, carrying the sickle and blood- stained clothes with him. He was seen in that condition by some villagers, and ultimately, according to P. W. 1, bhagoji, the Police Patil of the village, the accused was taken to the Police Outpost, kowad. There, the F. I. R. was lodged, seizure of the sickle was executed, and investigation was started. Thereafter, the accused was arrested, his clothes were seized, and on completion of the investigation, the accused was charged of having committed murder of Sangita. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its case, and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion of guilt, as aforesaid. It is this order of conviction and sentence which is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) MR. Ingawale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- accused, submitted that the entire evidence, even if it is accepted, is grossly insufficient to warrant conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By taking us through the evidence, he has established such infirmities, which existed, and contended that the cumulative effect of these irregularities and omissions, of necessity, requires acquittal of the accused, and the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was the accused who assaulted the victim. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order, as, according to the prosecutor, the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge were based on evidence, and there is, therefore, no need to interfere. We have examined the case in the light of the evidence as it existed.