CRIMINAL The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Shankar Junavane )

); JUDGMENT ( Per Palshikar, J.); JUDGMENT ( Per Palshikar, J.);

1. Being aggrieved judgment 8-1-1997 passed VI Additional Sessions Judge, Pune Sessions Case No. 73 1996, appellant preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also canvassed before us.

2. With assistance learned advocate appearing behalf appellant learned APP, scrutinised entire record, re-appreciated evidence documentary as is raised on the record before the Additional Sessions Judge. (2)

3. The prosecution stated briefly 25-11-1995

8.30 p.m. Asrabai Sozarbai school building Kendriya vidyalaya Ksturba Vasahat Zopadapatti, Junavane Nagar, Aundh, Pune answer nature. When passing building confronted nature place. accused around school people answer appointed watchmen Thereupon victim ensued a quarrel between accused victim. Blows exchanged. The victim fell, home. On reaching home, victim lodged injured subsequently died. Complaint assault accused persons. Investigation conducted, accused arrested a result investigation, accused prosecuted intentionally causing victim. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses to prove its case.

4. The learned Judge appreciated entire evidence record conclusion prosecution miserably failed murder accused persons. He therefore proceeded (3) acquit charges levelled against them. It is this order which is impugned before us by the State.

5. P.w.1 Asrabai claims witness deposed entire incident occurred 25-11-1995. According witness Subhash victim accused accused abusing P.w.1 Asrabai p.w.7 Sozerbai, ensued a accused no.1 stabbed Subhash back. specifically stated The witness assault Subhash towards house. Then deposed lodging report witness extensively examined. In etc. cross examination she has admitted the following things.

That the edges of cement construction site.

That answer nature constructed cement bars. (4)

It cement removed pieces out.

It there was scuffle between victim Subhash accused exchange beating.

Subhash It during scuffle fallen tank.

It that when Subhash immediately towards house.

This witness proceeds to admit in para 8 of her deposition that she had not seen the knife Article 10 any time previously and saw

it for the first time in the court.

6. These admissions virtually impossible believe testimony witness alleges stabbing victim accused knife and having failed to identify the knife in the court.

7. Even

(5) Then evidence recovery place. However recovery cannot therefore attached significance. recovery accepted seizure stained clothes, nothing brought record prosecution connect accused victim. In absence connection, merely because recovered clothes stained blood, cannot presumed that the accused are the persons and are the perpetrators of the crime. Then evidence easing kendriya vidyalay wall. She, extend corroborates evidence P.w.1. But scrutiny evidence P.w.1 evidence omissions contradictions. The learned Judge consideration all these aspects and therefore in para 17 of his judgments stated, which reads thus: "It is clear from the evidence of four eye witness examined by the prosecution that, the knife or dagger Art. No.10 was never shown to them in the course of investigation by police. This circumstance is not explained a (6) by the prosecution. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from this circumstance is that the dagger or knife Arti. No.10 was not used by the accused No.1 and it was not seen with accused no.1 at or about the relevant time by these witnesses. This circumstance also materially affects the prosecution case that, the knife and dagger Art. No.10 was recovered at the instance of the accused no.1. The eye witness account of the incident is not cosnistent, natural and convincing. It appears that the eye witnesses have not stated the whole truth. It also appears that incident must not have occured as alleged by the prosecution. "

Then learned Judge proceeds discuss circumstantial evidence recovery stained clothes accused, proved. Then learned Judge proceeds reject evidence recovery, witness categorically admitted signed panchanama police station. The credibility document therefore lost. Then appreciated question recovery witnesses (7) categorically admitted examinations during investigation. In 25 learned Judge considers complicity accused no.2 observes entire evidence P.w.1 Asrabai P.w.2 accepted totally, nothing accused no.2. He a security appointed kendriya Vidyalay accused no.1 presence therefore natural. He accused no.1 did, absence attributed question guilty murder section

In event, appreciation evidence learned Judge reasoned acquitted accused offences. In opinion, findings recorded learned Judge appreciation evidence, proper analysis circumstantial evidence correct application case. There whatever judgment impugned consequently interfere sound and reasoned order of acquittal. In the result therefore, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.