Suresh S/O Mahadeo Deshmukh (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6798 Bom

                                 1                         apeal7.15.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7 OF 2015



  Suresh s/o. Mahadeo Deshmukh,
  About 47 Yrs., Occ. Labour,
  r/o. Presently Convict No.
  C-4626, Amravati Central
  Prison, Amravati/Murtizapur,
  Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola.                 ..........      APPELLANT


          // VERSUS //


  State of Maharashtra,
  through Police Station Officer,
  P.S.O., Murtizapur, Tq.
  Murtizapur, Distt. Akola.                        ..........       RESPONDENT


  ____________________________________________________________  
               None for the Appellant.
               Mr.A.M.Deshpande, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
  ____________________________________________________________




::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:25:40 :::
                                      2                                 apeal7.15.odt


                                    CORAM     :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK
                                                       AND
                                                       M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 5.9.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :

1. The appellant has challenged the Judgment of conviction

awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial

No.152 of 2012, dt.13.11.2014, by which he is sentenced to suffer

life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

2. The case of the prosecution/complainant, in short, is as

under :

The deceased along with his wife namely Maya was

residing near Lakadgunj over bridge, Murtizapur. The complainant

lost her first husband. She married with the deceased/husband for

the second time. She has two daughters namely Chhakuli and

3 apeal7.15.odt

Shalini. The deceased along with his family and parents were

residing jointly. The accused is relative of deceased. He was always

visiting to the house of the deceased. The accused and the deceased

both were addicted to liquor.

3. On 5th August, 2012, the deceased went outside for

bringing liquor. He returned back at about 9.00 a.m. He told his

wife/complainant that he wanted to go to the house of the accused

to get the amount back which was given by him to the accused.

Later, he told her that he has drunk liquor excessively and therefore,

he will go in the evening.

4. In the evening, at about 5.30 p.m., deceased Sonu went

to the house of the accused. His wife/complainant was knowing that

the accused is a quarrelsome person and therefore, she suspected

that there would be some quarrel between the accused and the

deceased. Therefore, she sent her daughter Chhakuli after 5-10

minutes towards the house of appellant Suresh. After sometime,

Chhakuli returned back and informed to the complainant that her

father was lying there and blood was oozing ("papa vaha pade hai

aur unka bahut khoon ja raha hai"). The complainant immediately

4 apeal7.15.odt

rushed to the spot of incident. She found her husband lying in a pool

of blood. He had injuries on his face, nose etc. On the complainant

asking her husband/deceased, he replied that he was beaten by

accused Suresh. Then she asked him by what means he was beaten.

He replied that the accused beat him by stone. The complainant

called auto and took the deceased to the Government hospital,

Akola. Doctor examined the deceased and declared him brought

dead. Complainant lodged the report in the Police Station,

Murtizapur about the incident.

5. After report, investigation machinery was put in motion.

The Investigating Officer started investigation. He went to the spot of

incident, prepared spot panchanama, seizure panchanama, inquest

panchanama etc. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused. He

was referred to the Medical Officer. The Investigating Officer seized

the clothes of the deceased, stone and the clothes of accused and

their blood samples etc. The Investigating Officer sent all the seized

properties to the Chemical Analyser for examination as per the letter

at Exh.44. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of

complainant and other witnesses. It was revealed during the

investigation that the accused committed murder of deceased Sonu.

5 apeal7.15.odt

6. After completing investigation, charge sheet was

submitted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Murtizapur. The offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Therefore,

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur committed the case for

trial to the Court of Sessions at Akola.

7. The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola framed charge at

Exh.2. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The defence of the appellant/accused appears to be of

total denial and false implication due to enmity.

9. Prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses. The

statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the material incriminating

evidence against him.

10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, after

hearing the prosecution and the defence, convicted the accused for

6 apeal7.15.odt

the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced him as stated above.

11. Being aggrieved by the Judgment, the appellant has filed

the present appeal.

12. None appears on behalf of the appellant. Heard

Mr.A.M.Deshpande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent/State. He has pointed out to us the evidence adduced by

the prosecution before the trial Court and submitted that the

evidence of complainant is supported by other circumstantial

evidence. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that the deceased went to

the house of the accused to demand money, which was advanced by

him earlier. The complainant was well aware that there would be

some quarrel. Therefore, she sent her daughter. Daughter returned

within a short time and informed to the complainant that the

deceased was lying in a pool of blood. The complainant immediately

went to the spot of incident and on her asking, the deceased stated to

her that the accused beat him by stone.

7 apeal7.15.odt

13. Mr.A.M.Deshpande, learned A.P.P. has submitted that

oral dying declaration given by the deceased to PW-1 Complainant is

sufficient to convict the accused. The learned A.P.P. has further

submitted that blood was found on the clothes of the accused. He has

also pointed out the evidence of daughter of the deceased and

submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction awarded by

the trial Court is perfectly legal and correct, hence, appeal is liable

to be dismissed.

14. Whether death of Sonu is homicidal is to be seen. To

prove homicidal death, prosecution has examined Medical Officer

Dr.Bele (PW-7), who has conducted post mortem on the dead body

of Sonu Chavan on 6.8.2012. He found the following injuries :

(I) Crushed lacerated wound involving upper lip, right

and left nostrils of size 5.5 cm. 2.3 cm. x bone deep. The

surface of wound at edges and margins are red and

crushed along with underline maxilla and nasal bone

appears broken into pieces and broken pieces of bone can

be seen through wound.

                                      8                                  apeal7.15.odt

              (II)             Contused   abrasion   of   reddish   brown   colour  

              over chin of size 3 x 1 cm.

              (III)            Laceration of size 4 x 2cm x muscle deep over  

              zygoma.

              (IV)             Lacerated   wound   over   left   leg   on   medical  

              aspect of size 2.5 x 1.3 cm x bone deep.

              (V)              Diffused contusion seen over chest on right side  

intra-clavicular and supra-maxillary region extending

towards interior fold of axilla towards right side of size

13 x 6.3 cm.

(VI) Nail scratch mark seen over left shoulder joint

and intra-clavicular region multiple.

(VII) Spindle shape incised penetrating stab wound

over right leg, lower 1/3rd aspect, anterior of size 3.2 x

1.5 cm x cavity deep.

(VIII) Fracture of nasal bone maxilla zygomatic arch

confirmed on dissection.

All the injuries were ante mortem.

15. As per the evidence of Medical Officer Mr.Bele, cause of

death as per his opinion was haemorrhagic shock due to laceration of

9 apeal7.15.odt

liver and associated cranio cerebral injury. Accordingly, he prepared

the Post Mortem report (Exh.36). He has further stated that the

injuries which he found on the dead body were sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death. Such injuries were possible

if any person was assaulted by stone. Therefore, it is clear that

death of Sonu Chavan was homicidal death. In his cross-

examination, he has admitted that in case of cerebral injury to a

person, it may cause instant death or he may become unconscious.

16. The learned trial Court relied on the evidence of Maya

Sonu Chavan (PW-1) and her daughter Chhakuli @ Shalini Sonu

Chavan (PW-4). The learned trial Court relied on the oral dying

declaration given by the deceased to Maya Chavan (PW-1) and also

relied on the circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there is no eye

witness of the incident.

17. Now it is a well settled law that the Court can convict the

accused only on the basis of the dying declaration provided that the

dying declaration should be of such a nature which should inspire

the confidence of the Court. Now, in the catena of decisions, it is

held that there is no particular format to record the dying

10 apeal7.15.odt

declaration. The dying declaration may be oral or may be in writing.

The dying declaration, as stated by the complainant, is sufficient to

convict the accused and whether there is any other evidence to

support/corroborate the dying declaration.

18. Now we have to see whether the oral dying declaration

given by Maya Chavan (PW-1) and the circumstantial evidence relied

on by the Court are sufficient to convict the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

19. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that, at

the time of incident, at about 5.30 p.m., her husband Sonu Chavan

had gone to the house of the accused to demand money which was

advanced to him. She has further stated that she immediately sent

her daughter Chhakuli (PW-4) to see as to whether there was any

quarrel. Chhakuli followed her father/deceased and returned back

within a short time. Chhakuli narrated to Maya Chavan (PW-1) that

deceased Sonu was lying in front of the house of Mangala. Maya

Chauvan (PW-1) along with Chhakuli and her father-in-law went to

the spot of incident. At that time, Meena Mohan Waghmare (PW-5)

and Deokabai were also present.

11 apeal7.15.odt

20. Maya Chauhan (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that

her husband was lying in a pool of blood. When she asked him as to

what happened, the deceased told her that accused Suresh beat him

by stone.

21. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has further stated in her evidence

that she immediately took her husband to the Government Hospital,

Murtizapur. The Medical Officer advised her to take her husband to

the General Hospital at Akola. She took her husband to the General

Hospital, Akola. The Medical Officer declared him brought dead.

22. Chhakuli @ Shalini Sonu Chavan (PW-4) is the daughter

of the deceased and Maya Chavan (PW-1). It is to be seen as to

whether the evidence adduced by Maya Chavan (PW-1) and

Chhakuli (PW-4) is sufficient and reliable.

23. Now it is well settled law that an oral dying declaration

can be relied on to convict the accused. It is a piece of evidence

which can be relied on as like other substantive evidence. If it is

found that it is a reliable evidence then the Court can convict the

accused only on the basis of the dying declaration. In the landmark

12 apeal7.15.odt

Judgment of Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay reported in AIR

1958 SC 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :

" In order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. But once, the Court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration.

If, on the other hand, the Court, after examining the dying declaration in all its aspects, and testing its veracity, has come to the conclusion that it is not reliable by itself, and that it suffers from an infirmity, then, without corroboration it cannot form the basis of a conviction. Thus, the necessity for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration as a piece of evidence, as held in some of the reported cases, but from the fact that the Court, in a given case, has come to the conclusion that that particular dying declaration was not free from the infirmities, referred to above or from such other infirmities as may be disclosed in evidence in that case. "

13 apeal7.15.odt

24. In the present case, the dying declaration given by the

deceased to Maya Chavan (PW-1) appears to be not reliable because

evidence of PW-1 is not supported by any other evidence. PW-5 has

stated that deceased has not stated anything. As per medical

evidence he must be unconscious or dead. There should be

satisfaction of the Court that the deceased was in a fit state of mind

when he disclosed the incident. The dying declaration is the last

statement of the person about the cause of his death. As per Section

32 of the Evidence Act the statement made by the deceased about his

cause of death or the circumstances which leads to the death is

admissible.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman vs.

State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710 has observed as under :

"The Juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such a declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth....... The situation in which a man is on death bed is so solemn and serene, is the

14 apeal7.15.odt

reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with ........A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and in any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite......When it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the presence of a Magistrate is absolutely necessary, although to assure authenticity it is usual to call a Magistrate, if available for recording the statement of a man about to die. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a Magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording"

26. The principle behind the dying declaration is that the

person who is on a death bed will not speak lie. Therefore, it can be

relied on by the Court as like other evidence and only on the basis of

the dying declaration, the accused can be convicted provided that the

dying declaration should inspire confidence of the Court.

27. With the above said observation of Hon'ble Apex Court,

we have to see whether the dying declaration given by the deceased

to Maya Chavan (PW-1) before the trial Court is sufficient to hold

15 apeal7.15.odt

that the accused has committed murder of deceased Suresh. As per

the evidence of Maya Chavan (PW-1) when she reached to the spot

of incident, the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. On her asking,

her husband/ deceased replied that the accused beat him by stone.

Immediately she took her husband to the Medical Officer,

Murtizapur, who advised her to take the deceased immediately to the

General Hospital at Akola.

28. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that she

immediately took her husband to the General hospital, Akola and the

doctor/Medical Officer declared him brought dead. In such a

situation, whether the deceased was in a mentally fit condition to

disclose about the cause of death is to be seen. Maya Chavan (PW-1)

and Chhakuli (P.W-4) are the interested witnesses because Maya

Chavan (PW-1) is wife and Chhakuli (PW-4) is the daughter of the

deceased. There is no law preventing or barring the Court from

relying on the relatives of the deceased. The relatives of the

deceased can be relied on, but their evidence is to be scrutinized very

carefully.

16 apeal7.15.odt

29. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that

when she asked her husband, he told that the accused beat him by

stone. This evidence is not supported or corroborated by any other

evidence. Chhakuli (PW-4) has stated in her evidence that she along-

with her mother Maya Chavan (PW-1) went to the spot of incident.

Her mother asked the deceased as to how the incident took place.

Her father replied that accused beat him by stone. Her evidence is

not reliable because in her cross-examination she has admitted that

Maya Chavan (PW-1) tutored her. She was given instructions as to

how to depose in the Court and what should be deposed before the

Court. This admission in the cross-examination of Chhakuli (PW-4)

clearly shows that she was tutored by Maya Chavan.

30. As per the evidence of Maya Chavan (PW-1), Meena

Waghmare (PW-5) was also present with her. Evidence of Meena

(PW-5) shows that Maya Chavan had not asked anything to the

deceased. She has not supported to the prosecution. She has

specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that there was no talk

between Maya and deceased Sonu. Though this witness has not

supported to the prosecution, the evidence of hostile witness cannot

17 apeal7.15.odt

be thrown away. The material evidence can be taken into

consideration.

31. It is to be seen from the medical evidence also as to

whether deceased Sonu was in a position or in a fit mental condition

to state anything before Maya Chavan (PW-1). As per the evidence of

Maya Chavan (PW-1), she had taken the deceased to the Medical

hospital, Murtizapur. The Medical Officer was present there. He

instructed her to take the deceased immediately to the General

Hospital, Akola.

32. When the Medical Officer was present, it was for the

prosecution to examine him to show as to whether the deceased was

conscious and was in a position to give statement. Had it been a fact

that the deceased was conscious and was in a fit mental condition

then, as per the general procedure, the Medical Officer ought to have

informed the police and to record the dying declaration through the

Executive Magistrate. It is not done in the present case. Therefore, it

supports the defence that the deceased was not conscious when

Maya reached to the spot of incident and thereafter, when she took

the deceased to the hospital.

18 apeal7.15.odt

33. The defence is proved by effective cross-examination by

the side of the accused. The learned trial Court has not taken into

consideration the material admissions brought on record by the side

of the defence. Medical Officer Dr.Ramhari Parbat Bele (PW-7) has

stated in his evidence that he conducted post mortem on the dead

body of the deceased and found about eight injuries. In his

examination-in-chief itself, he has stated that the cause of death as

per his opinion was "hemorrhagic shock due to laceration of liver and

associated cranio cerebral injury". There is no doubt that the deceased

died homicidal death. As per the admission in the cross-examination

of Dr.Bele, it is clear that the deceased died immediately on the spot.

He has admitted in his cross-examination that, in case of cerebral

injury to a person, it may cause instant death or he may become

unconscious.

34. As per the evidence of Dr. Bele, deceased sustained

haemorrhagic shock due to laceration of liver and associated cranio

cerebral injury. In his cross-examination, Dr. Bele has specifically

stated that, in case of cerebral injury to a person, he may die

instantly or become unconscious. Therefore, it is clear that the

deceased must have died instantly or he must have become

19 apeal7.15.odt

unconscious. Therefore, the evidence adduced by Maya Chavan

(PW-1) that her husband stated to her that the accused beat him by

stone is not reliable.

35. Evidence of PW-1 is falsified by the evidence of Dr. Bele.

As per his evidence, the deceased sustained haemorrhagic shock due

to laceration of liver and associated cranio cerebral injury and in

such a case, the deceased must have died instantly or he was

unconscious. Therefore, the dying declaration which creates doubt

cannot be relied on as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Surinder Kumar .vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 10

SCC 173. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that " though

there is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration

cannot be acted upon without corroboration but the Court must be

satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary and in that

event, there is no impediment in basing conviction on it, without

corroboration. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the dying

declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the

result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. Where a dying

declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without

corroborative evidence. Likewise, where the deceased was

20 apeal7.15.odt

unconscious and could never make any declaration the evidence with

regard to it is rejected. "

36. In the present case, the oral dying declaration given by

the deceased to Maya Chavan (PW-1) is suspicious, without any

corroboration and therefore, cannot be relied on to convict the

accused.

37. The learned trial Court relied on the circumstantial

evidence. The learned trial Court has observed that the deceased

went to the house of the accused to demand money. Chhakuli (PW-

4) followed him and found him lying on the road in a pool of blood.

PW-1 with Chhakuli went to spot and asked the deceased then he

replied that accused beat him by stone. The learned trial Court has

observed that these are the circumstances.

38. It is pertinent to note that the accused was not found on

the spot of incident, near the spot of incident or at his house. It is the

case of the prosecution that the deceased was lying in front of the

house of Mangala on a public road. Prosecution has not examined

Mangala or any other person who are residing nearby the spot of

21 apeal7.15.odt

incident. It is pertinent to note that the incident took place at about

5.30 p.m. Therefore, it was an evening time. The people must have

been there or nearby the spot of incident. Therefore, it was the duty

of the prosecution to examine any of the witnesses residing nearby

the spot of incident. But not a single witness from the spot of

incident is examined by the prosecution.

39. The circumstances relied on by the trial Court are not

sufficient to convict the accused. Now it is a settled and established

law that the circumstances should be of such a nature that they

should point towards the guilt of the accused and none else as held

by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda

vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. In the present case,

not a single circumstance is brought on record by the prosecution to

show that the accused is the author of the crime and none else.

40. Evidence of Maya Chavan (PW-1) is not

supported/corroborated by any other evidence. Evidence of Chhakuli

(PW-4) clearly shows that she has stated before the Court as per

instructions of Maya Chavan (PW-1). Meena Waghmare (PW-5)

specifically stated that Maya Chavan (PW-1) did not enquire with the

22 apeal7.15.odt

deceased in her presence. Raju Bhimrao Chavan (PW-6), the father-

in-law of Maya Chavan (PW-1) has stated that Maya Chavan (PW-1)

asked in his presence to the deceased and the deceased had told that

the accused beat him by stone. This evidence is falsified by his cross-

examination. In his cross-examination, it is brought on record as a

material omission. Therefore, it is clear that it is nothing but

improvement. Moreover, Raju Chavan (PW-6) was prosecuted on the

report of the accused and therefore, there was enmity between them.

41. The Chemical Analyser's reports are on record at Exh.

Nos. 47 to 51. The C.A. Reports show that human blood was found

on the clothes of the deceased, the accused and the stone. Blood

group of accused and deceased are not determined. It is pertinent to

note that the material admissions are brought on record in the cross-

examination of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer

has stated in the cross-examination that he seized three bottles of

blood of deceased, whereas he sent only two bottles to the C.A. He

has not explained in his evidence as to what he has done with the

third bottle. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the blood

might have been smeared on the clothes and stone and therefore, the

evidence of C.A. Report is doubtful.

23 apeal7.15.odt

42. The evidence to convict the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code must be

carefully scrutinized and the Court should insist for an

unimpeachable evidence. In the present case, the Court relied on the

dying declaration given to Maya Chavan (PW-1). First of all, it was

an oral dying declaration. It appears that the deceased was not in a

fit mental condition to give the dying declaration. If it was so, then

as per the practice, the dying declaration should have been recorded

by the Executive Magistrate. The dying declaration was not recorded

either by the Executive Magistrate or the Medical Officer or police.

43. The oral dying declaration given to Maya Chavan (PW-1)

is not reliable because of the admission given by Meena Waghmare

(PW-5). She has specifically stated that Maya Chavan (PW-1) did

not ask anything to the deceased in her presence. The evidence of

Medical Officer Dr.Bele clearly shows that the deceased sustained

celebral injury. As per his evidence in the cross-examination, if any

person sustains such type of injury then he must die instantly or must

become unconscious. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased must

have died instantly or he was unconscious.

24 apeal7.15.odt

44. Prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer of

Murtizapur. If the deceased was really in conscious condition, then

he would have recorded some observations in the record of hospital.

As per evidence of Maya Chavan (PW-1), the Medical Officer,

Murtizapur directed her to take the deceased immediately to the

General Hospital, Akola. This itself shows that the deceased was in a

serious condition or he might have died. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has

stated that immediately she took her husband to the General

Hospital, Akola. The Medical Officer at Akola Government Hospital

declared him brought dead. All this evidence clearly show that the

oral dying declaration relied on by the trial Court as stated by Maya

Chavan (PW-1) is doubtful; therefore, accused cannot be convicted

on the basis of oral dying declaration.

45. The circumstantial evidence which is also relied on by

the trial Court is not sufficient to convict the accused. There is no

other circumstance. The only circumstance that the deceased went to

the house of the accused to demand money is the circumstance taken

into consideration by the trial Court. It is pertinent to note that

nobody saw the accused at his house near the spot of incident or on

the spot of incident. Therefore, this circumstance cannot be said to

25 apeal7.15.odt

be a circumstance to be taken into consideration to convict the

accused.

46. The trial Court miserably failed to consider the material

evidence brought on record during the course of cross-examination.

The effective cross-examination is made by the side of the accused to

all the witnesses and material admissions are brought on record, but

all those admissions are not considered by the trial Court. Now it is

well settled law that, while delivering the Judgment, the Court has to

see or scrutinize the whole evidence which is brought on record. The

Court cannot see a particular part of evidence and neglect the other

part of evidence. The evidence in isolation is not to be read. The

Court has to read the evidence as a whole and not in isolation. It

appears from the Judgment of the trial Court that the material

evidence which is beneficial to the accused is not taken into

consideration. The material evidence of doctor itself shows that the

deceased died instantly or he was unconscious when Maya Chavan

(PW-1) reached to the spot of incident. There is no other material

circumstance to point out towards the guilt of the accused.

26 apeal7.15.odt

47. Prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is

entitled for acquittal. The learned trial Court has not considered the

evidence properly and therefore, the impugned Judgment of

conviction is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we allow the

appeal as prayed for and pass the following order.

The appeal is allowed.

Accused Suresh Mahadeo Deshmukh is hereby acquitted

of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code.

The appellant/accused is in jail. He be set at liberty if not

required in any other case or crime.

The seized property being worthless be destroyed after

lapse of the appeal period.

The record and proceedings be sent back to the trial

Court.

                               JUDGE                             JUDGE

  jaiswal





                                27                     apeal7.15.odt




                   JUDGE                                  JUDGE
   



  [jaiswal]





                                28               apeal7.15.odt