RAJANIKANT KESHAV BHANDARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (Rajanikant Keshav Bhandari) and accused Ramdas Shivram Naik were charged under Sections 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, or, in the alternative, under Sections 302 and 397 read with Section 114 of the said Code, for having committed the murder of Kamalakant Salgaonker on 12th December, 1964. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused Ramdas Shivram Naik had not been proved and, therefore, he directed his acquittal. As regards the appellant he was satisfied that he was guilty of murder, robbery and causing disappearance of the evidence of murder and, accordingly, he convicted him under these sections and sentenced him to death. There is an appeal from the appellant. There is also a reference under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code for our consideration.

(2.) The case for the prosecution, as disclosed in the Court of Sessions, was that the deceased Kamalakant Salgaonker was a Clerk in the employment of Shri Dayanand Bandodker, the Chief Minister. He used to go to Margao by car on Saturdays to collect money from the Margao branch of the Bank of India on behalf of his employer. The appellant was his friend. The appellant had accompanied him on some Saturdays to Margao. A day before the murder the deceased asked the appellant whether he would accompany him to Margao. The appellant replied that he had some work at Curtorim that day and, therefore, he could not come. At about 8.30 A.M. next day (12th December, 1964) the appellant met with Amaro Dias, one of the drivers of Shri Bandodker, near the Panjim Church, and enquired whether he had not gone to Margao. The deceased, Raman Pernenker and Counto left for Margao by car between 9.30 A.M. and 10.00 that day. Raman Pernenker drove the car. Counto and Raman Pernenker were also in the employment of Shri Bandodker.

(3.) The accused Ramdas Shivram Naik was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that his conduct was consistent with innocence. The acquittal was supported by the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor at the Bar. The State has filed no appeal against this acquittal. Whether the acquittal was legally justified is a matter on which we do not wish to express any opinion at this stage. What we are now concerned with is whether conviction of the appellant is right. We may observe in passing that the accused Ramdas Shivram Naik threw the entire blame on the appellant. According to him he did not participate in the crime, and that he was an unwilling spectator. The appellant denied his guilt in the Court of Session. He was examined on all material circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. We may state that this examination could have been condensed and some of the questions put to him avoided, but we are satisfied that no prejudice has been caused by the prolixity of the examination. The main defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of Counto. The appellant did not examine any evidence in his defence.