SHABBIR KHAJABHAI SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 24 th July 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.73 of 2017, thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 307 , 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. For offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on each count, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 months apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

(2.) Facts, in brief, leading to prosecution as well as resultant conviction of the appellant/accused, can be summarized thus :

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused at sufficient length of time. He argued that the forensic report in respect of examination of the axe is inconclusive. There is delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). Clothes of the victim/First Informant/PW2 Riyana Shaikh were not examined by the Chemical Analyser. Though it is alleged that the victim/First Informant/PW2 Riyana Shaikh suffered bleeding injuries, clothes of the neighbours were not drenched with blood. The learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has not examined inmates of the house including son and daughter of the couple, so also the neighbours. The doctor has not stated that injuries suffered by the victim/First Informant/PW2 Riyana Shaikh were life threatening injuries. It is further argued that, though according to the prosecution case, the victim/First Informant/PW2 Riyana Shaikh was sleeping with her children, none of the children were injured. Evidence of the injured/First Informant/PW2 Riyana Shaikh is suffering from contradictions and the case in hand is that of false implication of the appellant/accused as the report was lodged only because agricultural land was not transferred in favour of the children of the injured/First Informant/PW2 Riyana Shaikh. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that seizure of the axe is after seven to eight days of the incident.