- (1.) The appellant takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli dated 13.8.2009 thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/.
(2.) The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under : (i) The accused and the deceased are both the employees of State Reserve Police Force. They were members of S.R.P.F. Group No.13 at Nagpur. They were deputed at "Jambiya Gatta" for Naxal Bandobast and camp security. One Santosh Bode was their incharge. It is the prosecution case that Kiran, the wife of the accused, had illicit relations with the deceased. It is further the prosecution case that the deceased used to tease the appellant as impotent. (ii) The prosecution case is that on 6.1.2006 the accused and the deceased were on duty at the Police Help Centre, Jambiya Gatta. It is the prosecution case that the appellant and the deceased were staying in the same room. At around 11.00 p.m. the inmates of the camp, heard sound of firing. The S.R.P.F. persons treating the same to be the attack by the Naxals, they took their position. However, after sometime, they realized that there was no firing from the outside and during the discussion, when all assembled, the accused disclosed to his colleagues that he had killed Ganghadhar Thakare. On such disclosure, all the police personnels rushed to the barrack and noticed that Gangadhar Thakare was lying dead on his bed. (iii) It is the prosecution case that, on being confronted, the accused told his superior that since deceased was teasing him as a person of third gender, impotent and teasing him on account of his wife, he had committed the murder of the deceased. Immediately thereafter Shri Bode, the head of R.P.F. Group, produced the accused before Police Station Officer Shri Rajankar. After lodging the necessary report by Shri Bode, the offence was registered by Shri Rajankar against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, order of conviction and sentence, as afore stated, came to be passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Gadchiroli. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal.
(3.) Shri Daga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the conviction is based basically on the extra judicial confessions to the superior officer as well as Madhukar. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that extrajudicial confession is very weak piece of evidence and unless there is some corroboration, conviction cannot be based on the same. Learned counsel submits that extrajudicial confessions, which have been relied upon by the learned trial judge in the present case, are not of such a nature, which would inspire confidence in the mind of the court. Learned counsel further submits that insofar as the circumstance, which is relied upon by the learned trial judge regarding the Chemical Analyser's report and the finding the blood stains on the clothes of the accused is concerned, the question regarding the same was not put to the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such said circumstance could not have been relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the apex court in the case of State of U.P. .vs. Mohd. Iqram and another, 2011 AllMR(Cri) 2344 and Sahadevan and another .vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 3 SCC(Cri) 146. Learned counsel for the appellant also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Dnyaneshwar @ Deepak Vithal Khuple .vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 AllMR(Cri) 2188. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the impugned order of conviction is not sustainable in law.;