RAMESH RAMCHANDRA MAIGANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th December, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2001 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant No. 2 Ganesh Manikrao Umathe, who was released on furlough, did not surrender before the prison authorities. This Court, by an order, dated 29th January, 2009, directed that the appeal be listed for final hearing according to its order without waiting for surrendering of appellant No. 2 in the jail and further expressed hope and trust that the Jail Authorities would issue arrest warrant against appellant No. 2, who did not return to jail after availing the furlough. Hence, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

(3.) Smt. U. K. Kalsi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case. It was further submitted that the circumst6ances on which the learned trial Court relied upon, are (i) the motive; (ii) the last seen theory; and (iii) the recovery of the weapons. She further submitted that all these circumstances are weak piece of evidence. There is no concrete material or any concrete evidence presented by the prosecution so as to connect the appellant with the crime. The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution case rests on suspicion and it is not in dispute that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof and it is unsafe to convict a person merely on the ground of suspicion. She further submitted that the learned trial Court has committed error while appreciating the evidence and has ignored the law regarding of the circumstantial evidence.