SANTOSH CHANDRAKANT GAONKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for murder of Rama Upasso Gaonkar and he had been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. vide impugned Judgment Dated 20-8-1997 which is subject matter of this appeal. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to uhdergo 6 months R. I. for the said offence.

(2.) THE prosecution had, in all, examined 18 witnesses. However, the evidence of only some of the witnesses is material. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The evidence mainly consists of extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to P. W. 11, Rohidas M. Gaude, P. W. 13 Puno Pandurang Gaude and P. W. 16 Shamba Borkar as well as evidence of P. W. 6 Vatsal Salelkar and her husband P. W. 7 Guru Salelkar. Besides the extra-judicial confession, the other evidence upon which the reliance has been placed by the prosecution is recovery of blood stained danda at the instance of the appellant. The motive for the crime is stated to be the property dispute between the appellant and the deceased. In the F. I. R. which was lodged by Jaywant Gaonkar, P. W. 1, brother of the deceased, the names of appellant and P. W. 7 Guru Salelkar, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, figure as suspects. The lower Court relied upon the extra-judicial confession made to P. W. 13 Puno Pandurang Gaude, P. W. 16 Shamba Borkar, as well as the recovery of the blood stained danda, on the strength of which, the appellant has been convicted for murder of Rama Upasso Gaonkar.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Nitin Sardessai, appearing on behalf of the appellant, under the Legal Aid Scheme, has urged before us that the evidence of P. W. 13 Puno Gaude and P. W. 16 Shamba Borkar is unbelievable for various reasons including that even though these witnesses had come to know about the death of Rama Upasso Gaonkar in the evening of the day on which the appellant is alleged to have made confession before them, yet these witnesses neither informed the police nor any of the family members of the deceased. Their statements were recorded by the police after about a week or so. The recovery of the danda was attacked on the ground that the pancha does not at all disclose that the danda had any blood stains and that the recovery has been made from on open place, behind the house of the appellant. He also pointed out that there are material variations between the evidence of prosecution witnesses P. W. 11, P. W. 13 and P. W. 16 as to the exact expression used by the appellant while making confession. According to him the conviction founded on such evidence cannot be sustained and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.