GANPAT SHETYE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment, Order and sentence dated 31st March, 2017/1st April, 2017, made by the Additional Sessions Judge, at Mapusa, by which the Appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Relying upon Kartar Singh vs. State of Haryana,1982 AIR(SC) 1433 the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that the benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not to be extended to the Appellant.

(2.) In this case, the Appellant was charged of having committed the murder of his own wife Sneha, to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the Prosecution examined 32 witnesses in support of the charge. Upon completion of the Prosecution evidence, the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC came to be recorded. In fact, the Appellant in the present case, filed a written statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, as well in response to the question as to whether he had anything further to say in the matter. The Appellant, however, chose to lead no defence evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 31.3.2017, convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Further by a separate order dated 1.4.2017, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, as aforesaid. Hence, the present Appeal.

(3.) Mr. Deepak Girme, learned Counsel for the Appellant, at the very outset, submits that this is a case based almost entirely upon circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the principles relating to appreciation of circumstantial evidence, as laid down in several cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court, were required to be followed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge. He submits, however, that such principles have been ignored and the conviction recorded against the Appellant is, therefore, required to be set aside.