STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAJKUMAR CHANDRAKANT MHATRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Application No. 150 of 2007 is an application for condonation of delay. We have heard the application alongwith the application for leave to appeal.

(2.) The State is in appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Sessions Case Nos. 179/03, 87/04 and 17/05 against the acquittal of all the Respondents except Respondent No. 2 whose case was to be tried separately.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that Respondent no.1 agreed to show to the Police the dead body of the deceased Sanjay. THE case of the prosecution is that the statement was recorded on2-5-2003. This was based on interrogation made on1-5-2003 wherein Rajkumar agreed to show the spot where the body was exhumed the next day. THE learned Judge after considering the evidence of PW-4 Subhash Mhatre recorded a finding that the Police were already aware on1-5-2003 as to where the body was buried as they had addressed a letter to the Tahsildar Subhash Mhatre on1-5-2003 itself to remain present at the place wherefrom the body is to be exhumed. THE Court noted that Mhatre was not willing to disclose this fact. On the further cross-examination, the letter was placed on record. In other words, the Police were fully aware on1-5-2003 itself as to where the body was buried. THE submission on behalf of the Respondents has been that in these circumstances, the evidence of purported recovery of the body must be rejected. THE learned Judge considering the same aspect has not considered that evidence. This view of the learned Judge is supported by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Virendra Vs. State of Delhi, 1997 6 SCC 171. THE Supreme Court has noted that the statement related to the fact which has already been discovered is not admissible.