REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. - (1.)HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P.
(2.)THE appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 18th January, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.6, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 771/2008 by way of this present appeal. Vide the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC ) and has sentenced him to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 500/ -, in default, to suffer SI for six months. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act and is sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 500/ -, in default, to suffer SI for six months. Both the aforesaid sentences and the previous sentences passed in Sessions Case No. 716/2008 were directed to run concurrently.
(3.)AT the outset, it may be noted that the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with imprisonment for life. Apart from Section 302 of the IPC, the appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w 25(I -B)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Case No. 716/2008 by the same learned Sessions Judge. The conviction and sentence awarded in Sessions Case No. 716/2008 has been confirmed by this Court in Appeal vide Judgment and Order dated 19th July, 2013.
The prosecution case in short is as under :

The present appellant is the son of the complainant PW 1 -Vasundhara Vasudeo Bandekar (the present appellant has disputed the same and has claimed to be the step -son of PW 1). PW 6 -Dhiraj Vishwanath Koli received information on 11th September, 2007 at about 9.20 p.m. from Rajesh Vasudeo Bandekar -PW 2, that the present appellant had opened fire on his mother - Vasundhara Bandekar -PW 1. On receipt of the said information, PW 6 -Dhiraj, who at that time, was attached to the Juhu Police Station, conveyed the said information to PI Balasaheb Dattatray Gade -PW 7, the night station duty officer. Thereafter, PW 6 - Dhiraj, along with his staff visited the spot i.e. the residence of PW 1 - Vasundhara at Aparna Apartment, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai. PW 6 -Dhiraj has stated that when he reached the spot of incident, persons had gathered there. PW 1 Vasundhara Bandekar is stated to have informed him, that the present appellant who was her elder son, had come to her house and had demanded his share in the property. She is stated to have narrated the entire incident which was recorded by PW -6. The said statement is at Exhibit 14.

After recording the statement of PW 1 -Vasundhara, PW 6 - Dhiraj informed the said incident to the Juhu Police Station and obtained a CR number on the said complaint. After registration of the offence, investigation commenced. Panchas were called for and spot panchnama came to be prepared in the presence of the said two panchas i.e. Jagdish Kothare and Suhas Jaywant.

During investigation, PW 6 - Dhiraj collected 1 cm length bullet, of which one side was damaged and the other side was encircled. He also collected broken pieces of glass. From outside the flat, where the alleged incident had taken place, he collected one empty cartridge. On the cap of the said empty cartridge, it was written as KF 7.65 and in the middle portion, there was a mark of firing. The said articles were seized and sealed in the presence of the panchas. PW 6 - Dhiraj has identified the articles in Court i.e. two pieces of broken bullet -Article B (colly); broken pieces of glass Article A (colly). The spot of the incident was photographed. After taking charge of all the articles which were seized, he returned to the Juhu Police Station and filled up the printed proforma of FIR, which is identified and is at Exhibit 15. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of Rajesh -PW 2 and his wife Shami; he sent the recovered bullet and empty cartridge to the Chemical Analyser for his opinion along with a covering letter dated 19th September, 2007 (Exhibit 27). Thereafter, the investigation came to be handed over to PW 7 -PI Balasaheb Gade.

PW 7 - Gade was attached to Juhu Police Station, Mumbai, as PI at the relevant time. He received the papers of investigation of CR No. 214/2007 from PW 6 - Dhiraj. The said witness has deposed hat he took steps to apprehend the appellant, however, he could not be found. He has deposed that as the present appellant was wanted in connection with a crime registered with the Dadar Police Station, Mumbai, and accordingly he contacted the Senior PI of the Dadar Police Station. However, the appellant could not be traced. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to PW 8 - Sangita Patil.

PW 8 Sangita Patil, who was attached as PI to the Juhu Police, has deposed that she received the case papers of the present CR i.e. CR No. 214/2007 on 20th August, 2008 for further investigation. She has deposed that she learnt that the appellant was arrested in connection with a CR registered with the Dadar Police Station. Accordingly, she arrested the appellant under a Transfer Warrant on 22nd August, 2008 and prepared the arrest panchnama which is at Exhibit 23 in the presence of panchas. She has deposed that she referred the Muddemal recovered in this case to the Chemical Analyser. She has stated that the weapon involved in the said case, was recovered in the CR, registered with the Dadar Police Station.

Accordingly, she obtained the custody of the weapon through the Court and thereafter, sent it to the Chemical Analyser with the covering letter (Exhibit 29). PW 8 - Sangita referred the bullet along with the empty cartridge to the Chemical Analyser. After completion of investigation, PW 8 - Sangita filed the charge -sheet in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was sessions triable, the same came to be committed to the Court of Sessions.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant was of total denial and false implication. He contended that PW 1 - Vasundhara was his step -mother and that as he had restrained her from selling the flat owned by his father, he was falsely implicated in the said case. According to the appellant, as the appellant and his wife did not leave the said flat, PW 1 -his step -mother and her son Rajesh had falsely implicated him in the said case.

The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. PW 1 -the complainant Vasundhara, the mother of the appellant; PW -2 Rajesh -the brother of the appellant; PW 3 -Durgesh -the panch to the spot panchnama; PW 4 -Santosh -panch to the arrest panchnama; PW 5 Shyamsunder -Assistant Chemical Analyser, who has given the Chemical Analyser's report; PW 6 -Dhiraj Koli; PW 7 -Balasaheb Gade and PW 8 -Sangita Patil, the Investigating Officers in the said case.