SANTOSH BHAGWANDIN BACHHARAJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was accused No. 2 in the Session Trial No. 109/1995 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, has been found guilty for murder of Mukesh Chavan under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code. THE appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year. Along with the appellant, seven other persons were tried who have been acquitted by the trial Court.

(2.) THE prosecution had examined six witnesses in all in support of the said charges. THE trial Court has accepted the evidence of eye witnesses PW-1 Nitesh and PW-2 Sunil as also the recovery of weapon of offence namely Gupti at the instance of the appellant as also the blood stains found on the clothes of the appellant. THE case of the appellant is total denial and in the Written Statement filed on his behalf, it is stated that some persons had gone to the house of Deepak for committing his murder but be was not seen in darkness and they murdered Mukesh thinking him to be Deepak.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned A. P. P. has submitted before us that two eye witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case in respect of the two blows given by the appellant and the same is supported by the medical evidence. According to learned A. P. P. , it was not necessary to duplicate evidence in the light of evidence of PW-1 Nitesh and PW-2 Sunil which does not suffer from any infirmity and in support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others (reported in AIR 2001 SC 2328 ). It is further submitted by learned A. P. P. that in the facts and circumstances of this case, non sealing of the weapon as also the clothes of the appellant upon which blood stains were found does not have much impact since the eye witnesses have identified the Gupti with which blows were given by the appellant and the presence of the human blood on the blade of the Gupti is but natural corollary of the blows inflicted on the deceased. According to the learned A. P. P. , the recovery of the Gupti at the instance of the appellant cannot be disbelieved since the Gupti was recovered at the instance of the appellant from cement pipe used for dumping garbage. According to him, there was no requirement of preparing site plan of the place from where the weapon of offence is recovered and from the evidence of the Investigating Officer as also the panch witness it is clear that the first panchnama was conducted in relation to the appellant and it is only thereafter that the second panchnama was conducted in relation to the recovery at the instance of original accused No.3. According to learned A. P. P. the recovery can not be disbelieved merely on the ground that in both the panchnmas, timings shown are same and if at all any recovery is to be discarded, the recovery which is second in point of time, may have to be rejected, but there is no reason whatsoever to discard the recovery first in point of time at the instance of the appellant. He also pointed out that the report of the Chemical Analyser shows that the articles were received by him in a sealed cover and in the circumstance, in the absence of cross-examination of the Investigating Officer it cannot be said that the blood stains were planted by the Investigating Officer on the clothes of the appellant or on the Gupti which has been identified by the eye witnesses. He, therefore, contends that the prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond doubt and as such the conviction and sentences imposed does not call for interference.