MOHAN GOVIND NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for murder of Keshav Uttam Naik under section 302 I. P. C. and for causing disappearance of evidence in relation to the said murder under section 201 I. P. C. The prosecution had in all examined 18 witnesses in support of the said charges. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, has, vide judgment dated 17th March 1998, held the appellant guilty under section 304 Part I, I. P. C. as well as section 201 I. P. C. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 6 months under section 304 Part I, I. P. C. and to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment under section 201 I. P. C. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention during the trial has been set off under section 428 Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Lotlikar, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has urged before us that the trial Court has based the conviction of the appellant primarily on the evidence of P. W. 3 Subash Naik coupled with the evidence of Dr. Audi P. W. 9 and, besides that, there is no other incriminating circumstance against the appellant. According to Shri Lotlikar, initially the case was registered as accidental death and, in fact, some of the family members of the deceased, namely, P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 are said to have reached the scene of offence after they heard shouts of the mother of the deceased stating that Keshav (deceased) had fallen in the well. Learned Advocate Shri Lotlikar took us through the evidence of P. W. 3 as well as evidence of Dr. Audi P. W. 9 and evidence of Gurudas Naik P. W. 7 and has pointed out that eventhough P. W. 3 Subhash Naik has stated that he had informed Gurudas Naik P. W. 7 immediately after the incident that the appellant had assaulted the deceased, yet Gurudas Naik P. W. 7 does not at all speak of the fact of Subhash Naik P. W. 3 having informed him of this fact. He then pointed out that, according to P. W. 3 Subhash Naik, it was only one blow with sharp edge of koita on the forehead of the deceased but the corresponding injury, according to Dr. Audi P. W. 9, is stated to have been caused by blunt weapon. It was then pointed out that Dr. Audi P. W. 9 does not rule out the possibility of all the injuries being caused on the person of the deceased as a result of fall from a height and rolling down on a rough surface. The dead body of the deceased is said to have been found in the well. He, therefore, contends that not only the evidence of Subhash Naik P. W. 3 does not inspire confidence, it does not get corroboration from the medical evidence on record. On the basis of the above submissions it was urged that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellant and as such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor Shri Faria tried his best to support the prosecution and urged before us that there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the testimony of Subhash Naik P. W. 3, who has categorically stated that he saw the appellant giving a koita blow on the forehead of the deceased; that, according to Dr. Audi P. W. 9, injury No. 1 which was found on the forehead was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Thus, according to him, the assault about which P. W. 3 has deposed is fully supported by the evidence of Dr. Audi P. W. 9. He pointed out that the trial Court has believed Subash Naik P. W. 3 as well as the evidence of Dr. Audi P. W. 9 and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.