STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Doifode, learned APP for the State of Maharashtra, Shri R.P. Joshi learned counsel for the respondent-original accused and Shri Sable learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) BY judgment and order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.252 of 2008 the respondent-original accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to death, for the offence under section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for 2 years, and under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to suffer R. I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to payment of fine to suffer R.I. for 6 months. As the respondent was sentenced to death it was subject to confirmation of the said sentence by the High Court, hence this Confirmation Case.

(3.) SHRI Joshi pointed out that on the day P.W. 3 was examined, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were examined on the same day. They were cross examined by the learned Advocate for the accused, however, when P.W. 3 Meenal was examined on the same day at the time of cross examination Advocate for the accused was not present, hence the accused was called upon to cross examine this witness. Shri Joshi submitted that as the case was adjourned to the very next day, the cross examination of P.W. 3 could have been easily deferred to the next day, thereby giving an opportunity to the learned Advocate for the accused to cross examine this witness on the next day, however this was not done.