PRADIP SUBHASH INGLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Wasnik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for the respondent/State.

(2.) Mr. Wasnik, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no explanation as to how the appellant has sustained injury. He further submits that PW-5 Amrapali has not supported the prosecution story. The C.A. report Exh.35 (pg.61) does not indicate any blood on the knife. The panch PW-4 Kishor (pg.28) for the seizure has turned hostile and therefore, the recovery has not been proved. He further submits, that the weapon was not sent for query as to whether the injury was possible because of it. He therefore submits, that on these grounds the impugned judgment which convicts the appellant for the offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences him for rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default rigorous imprisonment of one year and so also under Sec. 354 of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default rigorous imprisonment of one month, be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for the respondent/State opposes the appeal and submits that the evidence of PW-2 - Victim is clear and specific. She further states that even PW-5-Amrapali supports the version of PW-2 to a certain extent. The defence theory, that the victim and the appellant were having a long-standing love affair, which came to the knowledge of the husband of the victim/PW-2, as a result of which, her husband has made an assault, has not been proved. The seizure of the weapon, has been proved by the Investigating Officer and so also by the panch witness PW-4, who admitted his signature upon the spot panchnama, though he has denied about seizure of knife (pg.34). The injuries according to her, have been proved by PW-7 Dr. Syed Irfan Syed Pasha (pg.76) who has issued the certificate at Exh.47 (pg.80) regarding the injuries sustained by the victim, and by PW-8 Dr. Umesh Agrawal. She therefore submits, that the assault and the injuries resulting from the assault, have been clearly attributed to the appellant and have been proved, considering which, the impugned judgment does not need any interference.