PRADEEP Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is questioning his conviction and consequent sentence imposed upon him by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 19.09.2013 in Sessions Trial No.6/2012 by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and is directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and on that count, is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) We have heard Mr. R. M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T. A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the State. Both of them took us through in detailed, notes of evidence and record and proceedings of the sessions trial. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the present case is based on the circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the prosecution was obliged to prove each circumstance leading to the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove his presence at the spot at the time proximate to the occurrence of the crime. He submitted that the learned Judge of the Court below has wrongly convicted the appellant by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. He therefore submitted that the appeal may be allowed. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the appellant being resident of that house, his presence in the proximity of the occurrence of the incident can be presumed. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge of the Court below was right in convicting the appellant.

(3.) The appellant faced the charge that in the intervening night of 25.09.2011 and 26.09.2011, at the house of his landlord Natthuji Shrawan Khairkar at village Mandva, Dist. Wardha, he has committed murder of one Rajlaxmi who was residing with him as wife by throttling and smothering and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. He was also charged for screening himself from the legal punishment. He hid her dead body in the latrine of the house and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC.