RAMAJI DEU LABAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused appellant has impugned the judgement and order of the I Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar dated 10.6.2002. By this judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-. He has also been convicted under Section 201, IPC and has been sentenced to 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant was charged with the commission of the aforesaid offences alongwith one Suresh Krushna Navkar, accused No.2 who has been acquitted by the trial Court.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that Nilesh and the appellant were farm hands and were working in the same field owned by one Vijay Patil. On 7.10.2000, the appellant went to meet the deceased Nilesh who was sleeping in his aunt, Parvati's house. Nilesh left Parvati's house with the appellant and another farm hand saw them proceeding towards Palghar. The complainant Nilesh's father searched for Nilesh as he did not return home. On 10.10.2000, a dead body was found lying in the field of one Parulekar. He reported the matter to the police and ADR No.31 of 2000 was registered. An inquest panchanama and a spot panchanama were recorded on the next day i.e., on 11.10.2000. According to the prosecution, a white shirt with black stripes which was found lying near the dead body has been seized. The dead body was completely decomposed and, therefore, the autopsy was conducted at the spot where the body was discovered. An Advance Death Certificate was issued thereafter. The postmortem examination revealed that the victim had sustained injuries to the spinal cord at the neck as also certain other injuries. The dead body was then handed over to the municipal authorities for disposing it off as nobody had claimed the body. On 17.10.2000, the complainant was called to the police station to identify the shirt found near the corpse. According to the prosecution, the complainant identified the shirt to be that of Nilesh. A complaint was lodged by him thereafter against both the accused. According to the prosecution, they were able to recover the branch of a tree used for assaulting Nilesh at the instance of the accused. The clothes of the accused were also seized. The reports of the Chemical Analyser indicated that the blood stains on the clothes of the deceased and on the branch of the tree are of the same blood group. The accused were then charged and tried for committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As aforesaid, while accused NO.1 i.e., the present appellant was convicted for both the offences, accused No.2 was acquitted.

(3.) The case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has relied on the testimony of 11 witnesses in support of its charges against the appellant. The main thrust of the case of the prosecution is that the victim Nilesh was last seen in the company of the appellant and, therefore, it was the appellant who had committed the crime. The prosecution has relied on the seizure of the blood stained shirt of the deceased which was identified by the complainant. Besides this, the prosecution has relied on the medical evidence on record as well as the recovery of the weapon of assault and the reports of the Chemical Analyser.