MANGESH RAMCHANDRA BHAURAV ANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th January, 2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater bombay in Sessions Case No. 5s4 of 1999. The Sessions Court has convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -.

(2.) The charge against the appellant is that on 11th February, 1999 he killed his employer, Mehul Mehta, in t:he printing press where he was working between 8. 30 and 9. 00 in the morning. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses to support its charge against the appellant. Two of these witnesses, PW 4 and PW 5, who were Watchmen employed in the Industrial Estate where the printing press was situated, have been declared hostile. PW 1 is the Complainant and the brother of the deceased. PW 2 is a canteen worker examined to establish the presence of the appellant in the premises between 8. 30 and 9. 00 a. m. on 11th february, 1999. PW 3 is a co-worker of the appellant. PW 7 and PW 8 are panch witnesses who have proved the discovery panchanama and the seizure panchanama respectively. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is clearly based on circumstantial evidence. PW 1 has deposed that on 10th February, 1999 he and the deceased left the place of work at about 5. 30 p. m. , when the appellant had informed them that he would not be reporting for duty the next day. He has then disclosed that he spoke to his brother at about 8. 00 a. m. on 11th February, 1999 when his brother conveyed to him that the appellant had reported far duty and that he i. e. PW 1 should bring along with him the printing material to the press. He reached the press at about 9. 00 a. m. and noticed the workers employed standing in the lobby outside the press. On enquiries with the workers, he was informed that there is no response to the door bell and therefore PW 1 opened the door of the press with a duplicate key. He and the workers entered into the premises and they found Mehul lying in a pool of blood with injuries on his person. A Doctor was called who declared mehul dead. An FIR was lodged by the Complainant with the police. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the key of the door of the press was available only with the members of the family and nobody else. He has admitted that there was another door to the press at the back. However, there is no indication as to whether this door was locked. Furthermore, the prosecution has not established in any manner that the Complainant had in fact received a phone call from his brother at about 8. 30 a. m. on 11th February, 1999. The prosecution could have produced records from the: telephone department to establish that a phone call was received by the Complainant on that day to corroborate the evidence of the Complainant. Therefore the presence of the appellant in the press at 8. 30 a. m. has not been established with certainty.