AJAMALI SOHARALI @ AHMEDALI ANSARI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-90
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 15,2017

Ajamali Soharali @ Ahmedali Ansari Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Thane in Sessions Case No. 254 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R.I. for six months.
(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Yellava was residing with PW 1 Sushila at Patlu Chawl, Hanuman Tekadi, Bhiwandi. Yellava was doing business of prostitution. On 26.2.2010 at about 10.00 p.m., the appellant asked Yellava for sexual intercourse. She told him that he will have to pay Rs. 300/- if he wanted to spend entire night with her. Accordingly, he paid Rs. 300/- to Yellava. Thereafter, she told him that he would have to pay Rs. 100/- more if he wanted to spend the entire night with her. On account of this, some exchange of words took place between the appellant and Yellava. On hearing the exchange of words, Sushila went near Yellava and the appellant and she told the appellant that he would have to pay Rs. 400/- if he wanted to spend entire night with Yellava. The appellant spoke arrogantly with Sushila, hence, Sushila slapped the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant sat there for 10-15 minutes and then paid Rs. 100/- to Yellava. Sushila then went to the other room to sleep. In the morning, Sushila got up. She found that the front door was open and Yellava was lying dead beneath the bed with reddish and blackish mark on her neck. Blood was oozing from the mouth of Yellava. Sushila then lodged the FIR. Thereafter, investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.
(3.) Charge came to be framed against the appellant - original accused under Sections 302 , 380 and 404 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.