Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2013. Case: Sunil Vs The State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.M. Daga, Advocate and For Respondents: S.M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor |
| Judges | B. R. Gavai and A. S. Chandurkar, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 201, 302 |
| Judgement Date | March 28, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. S. Chandurkar, J.
-
The appellant who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Penal Code) has challenged judgment dated 31/07/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2012.
The case of the prosecution as can be gathered from the material on record is that on 08/05/2012 a call was received by the City Police Station, Chandrapur that a foul smell was coming from a house owned by one Harishchandra Chamate. The appellant along with his family was residing therein. Said Harishchandra came on the spot after which the lock of the door was broken by the police. There the dead body of one Panchafula, the sister of Harishchandra was found. On that basis, said Harishchandra lodged his report on 08/05/2012.
-
After the report was registered, investigation was carried out. A charge-sheet was duly filed in which the appellant was arrayed as an accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and as the appellant did not plead guilty, he was tried for aforesaid offence. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted as stated herein above.
-
Shri R.M. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been wrongly convicted by the Sessions Court. According to him, there was no eye witness to the incident and that merely on the basis of surmises, the appellant had been convicted. It was submitted that the presence of the appellant was not shown in the house at any time proximate to the incident. In absence of presence of the appellant being proved, it was not permissible for the prosecution to rely upon the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act for convicting the appellant. It was then submitted that the appellant was married in the year 2001 and there was no earlier report with regard to ill treatment of the deceased at his instance. There were various contradictions in the version of PW-1 who was the brother of the deceased as well as PW-5 who was the daughter of the appellant. It was further submitted that even the time of death of Panchafula was not brought on record and therefore in absence of such evidence, it would not be safe to convict the appellant for the aforesaid offence.
In support of aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Division...
To continue reading
Request your trial