MOHD FAROOQUE MOH MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2004 passed by the First Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No.226 of 1998 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 498 A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/ , in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for two months and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for two months, respectively; the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as under :

(3.) Shri. A. M. Ghare, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ accused made a strong attack on the prosecution evidence. He further submitted that except the so called dying declarations, there is no evidence brought by the prosecution against the appellant/accused. The learned Counsel further submitted that the case of the prosecution rests only on circumstantial evidence and in view of the settled law, the prosecution has to prove the circumstances and the chain of the circumstances strong enough to leave every hypothesis of the innocence of accused and on this touchstone if the prosecution evidence is looked at, the prosecution has utterly failed and as such submitted that the case requires interference at the hands of this Court. Shri. Ghare further submitted that there are three dying declarations on record. The first Dying Declaration (Exh.58) which was recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate immediately after the incident clearly establishes that death of Rukhsana was accidental. He further submitted that the other two dying declarations involving the accused cannot be considered for more than one reasons. The learned Counsel submitted that two dying declarations involving the appellant/accused are under the pressure of PW 1 Syed Ejajali. He further submitted that these two dying declarations cannot stand in view of the judicial decisions also.