SHIVAJI VITHAL BARDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 7th May 1994 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions Case No.34 of 1994 convic-ting the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is as follows :

(3.) THERE is no ocular version of the incident and the prosecution entirely based its case on circumstantial evidence. Ms.Cardezo the learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before us that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution have not been satisfactorily established and that in any event the circumstances said to be established against the appellant do not provide a complete chain to bring home the guilt against the appellant. She has contended that law is well settled that for sustaining a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstantial evidence must be convincingly established and such circumstantial evidence must be such as would complete the chain so as to leave no room for doubt against the complicity of the accused. In the instant case according to the learned counsel there are missing links. As such, no conviction can be based on the alleged circumstantial evidence. She has, therefore, submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the conviction and sentence should be set aside.