POPAT SHIVAJI HAJARE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 challenging the judgment and order dated 8.6.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur convicting both of them for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years apart from payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default directing them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months by each of them.

(2.) Heard Ms. Ayubi the learned advocate appearing for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3. By drawing my attention to the spot panchnama as well as evidence of PW-1 Ashok Sukhdeo Pawar, a panch witness to the spot panchnama, the learned advocate argued that the recitals in the spot panchnama are not in tune with the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there is serious doubt about the exact spot where the alleged incident took place. This according to the learned advocate appearing for the appellants/accused amounts to suppression of genesis of the prosecution case making it suspect. The learned advocate further argued that though according to the prosecution case, two knives are recovered at the instance of the appellant/accused. There is no description of the knife in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The blood was not found on the spot of the incident making version of the prosecution in respect of the incident is doubtful. The learned advocate further argued that accused persons were not medically examined by the investigator after their arrest. Similarly, injured witness PW-5 Sidram Nivrutti Pawar was also not medically examined. In all probabilities, injuries found on persons of PW-6 Tulshiram Nivrutti Pawar might have been caused to him during the course of scuffle between two groups for which, the present appellants/accused cannot be made responsible. Therefore, in submission of the learned advocate appearing for the appellants/accused, it cannot be said that, the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

(3.) The learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction by relying on version of injured witness PW-6 Tulshiram Nivrutti Pawar, so also eye witnesses namely, PW-5 Sidram Nivrutti Pawar and PW-9 Ambir Basha Mahiboob Mujawar. The learned APP argued that the evidence of PW-10 Dr.Pradeep Sandipan Kasbe coupled with duly proved papers of medical treatment of injured PW-6 Tulshiram Nivrutti Pawar unerringly points out commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the appellants/accused.