RAMESH NANDU SURUN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to a Judgment and Order in Sessions Case No. 333 of 2014 dated 06th Nov. 2015 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, whereby and whereunder the appellant Ramesh came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/with default stipulation, for having committed murder of his wife Sita Surum (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"

(2.) The background facts, which led to aforesaid prosecution and conviction, can be stated in brief as under:Sneha

(3.) Shri. Shekhar Ingawale, learned Counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, to espouse the cause of the appellant, took a slew of exceptions to the impugned judgment. The principal challenge was that though the homicidal death of the deceased is not disputable yet authorship thereof attributed to the appellant is not borne out by the evidence on record. Amplifying the submission, the learned Counsel for the Appellant would urge that the alleged eye witnesses Shantibai Tunda (PW3) and Surekha (PW6) had no opportunity to observe the incident. The veracity of their testimony was also assailed on the ground that there was inordinate delay in recording their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 Secondly, it was urged that the circumstantial evidence in the nature of seizure of the weapon of offence i.e. axe is also suspect on two counts. One, the recovery cannot be attributed to the appellant as the prosecution claimed a direct seizure and not recovery pursuant to the discovery made by the appellant and two, there is grave lacuna in the prosecution's case as the said axe was not immediately sealed after it was allegedly seized. Thirdly, the corroboration sought to be rendered by the other witnesses and circumstantial evidence falls through once the star witnesses namely Shantibai (PW3) and Surekha (PW6) stand discredited.