ANIL DAGGI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th November, 2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2002 whereby the present appellants came to be convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that, on the day of incident, i.e. on 12.12.2001, at about 4.00 to 5.00 p.m. deceased Rahul visited the house of Chintaman Giddu Gatey (PW 8). Chintaman has deposed that, on the day of incident, at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased visited his house. It is the case of prosecution that, when the deceased was at the house of Chintaman, appellant Raju came to the house of Chintaman on two motor cycles (evidence of Chintaman (PW 8) and Dhanraj (PW-10) is relevant in this regard). Accused Raju (deceased) started hurling abuses to deceased because the deceased and his friend had assaulted the brother of appellant No. 1. It is the case of prosecution that the appellants and deceased together left the house of Chintaman for consuming liquor on motor cycle at about 6.00 p.m. and soon thereafter, the dead body of deceased was found lying by the side of road which goes to village Paladi. The dead body was noticed by the villagers. Manoj Chaitram Goswami (PW 1), on the day of incident, in the evening was taking his meals at his house. At that time, 3 to 4 villagers from village Paladi came to his house and told him about the dead body which was lying by the side of the road beneath the tree. This witness went to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased. Dilip Ramdas Kulkarni (PW 14) (Investigating Officer), on receipt of information, visited the spot where the dead body of deceased was lying. The said information was received by him at about 7.20 p.m. Manoj (PW 1) at about 7 p.m. went to the spot of incident and from there, he went to Police Station, Bhandara and lodged report that one dead body was lying by the side of the road. The distance between the place where the dead body of the deceased was found and Bhandara town is about 10 kms. The dead body was forwarded to Dr. Manjusha Rangari (PW 13) for post mortem examination. Dr. Manjusha conducted post mortem examination on the dead body and found multiple incise and stab wounds on the person of deceased and opined that the death was caused due to multiple stab injuries on the chest, back as well as heart and lungs. The Investigating Officer, after completion of formal investigation, filed charge sheet against the appellants for the offence punishable Under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed and read over to the appellants. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, held the appellants guilty for the offence of murder of deceased Rahul and convicted them Under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants have filed present appeal.

(3.) The case of prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and the trial Court has considered the following circumstances and on the basis thereof, has held that all the circumstances cumulatively demonstrate that the appellants are responsible for causing murder of deceased Rahul. The circumstances which are relied on by the trial Court are as follows: