YADUBAHADUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No.2 Yadubahadur @ Yadu Manbahadur Singh convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 20/3/2014 for offence punishable u/s.302 for committing murder of deceased Ushaben Parekh and sentenced to suffer RI and to pay fine as also for murder of deceased Harsh Parekh similarly, has filed present appeal. He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 392 of Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay fine. We have heard learned counsel Nasreen Ayubi for accused and learned APP for the State.

(2.) According to learned counsel for accused there is no eye witness and conviction is based only on circumstantial evidence. None of the circumstances is brought on record by any cogent and convincing evidence. She submits that son of deceased Ushaben viz. Dilip examined as PW-7 could not identify accused No.2 and he identified accused No.1 who already was in employment of his mother. Test identification parade was conducted almost after 15 days that too in jail and reliance upon such test identification parade is unwarranted. His evidence that he saw three nepali persons in pump room and one of them was accused does not inspire confidence.

(3.) She urged that prosecution has introduced PW-6-Salim as witness to suit its purpose and he had no business to come to spot of offence otherwise. Evidence of this witness PW-6 is again not material as he claims that he saw three persons leaving the society in which deceased resided hurriedly cannot be accepted. This witness has accepted that he was shown accused No.2 in the police station and hence his participation thereafter in test identification parade cannot be accepted as valid.