Pradeep Manik Kanse vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 2628 Bom

                                                                   905-CrApl-653-20.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.653 OF 2020
                  WITH APPLN/2294/2020 IN APEAL/653/2020

                             PRADEEP MANIK KANSE
                                    VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                       ...
                   Advocate for Appellant : Shri S. B. Bhapkar
                   APP for Respondent - State : Shri K. S. Patil
                                       ...


                                    CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
                                            B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

DATE : 09TH FEBRUARY, 2021

PER COURT :

1. We have heard the learned advocate for the appellant /

applicant and the learned prosecutor on behalf of the State. We

have perused the extensive judgment dated 27-10-2020, delivered

by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.

279 of 2016, vide which he has convicted the accused for having

committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and

has sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and the sentence

is to last until his life. He is also convicted for having committed an

offence under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012.

2. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that

though there are 19 witnesses examined, the following issues have

1 of 4

905-CrApl-653-20.odt

not been properly adjudicated upon :-

a) Though the accused is said to have been in a one sided

love affair with the deceased who was not of a marriageable age,

there is no eye witness to his murdering the deceased.

b) A sickle is said to have been used by the appellant and

15 injuries have been inflicted upon the deceased which caused her

death. However, fingerprints on the sickle have not been taken and

there is no evidence that the accused has held the sickle in his

hand.

c) The evidence of the aunt ( eko'kh) of the deceased cannot

be treated as being the evidence adduced by an eye witness.

d) There is no evidence as to how the appellant has

procured the sickle.

3. Having considered the submissions of the learned

advocate for the appellant, we have gone through the impugned

judgment. The evidence indicates that the deceased was on the

terrace of the residential accommodation which is known as the

Athare Niwas, Burudgaon, Ahmednagar, on 27-05-2016 at about

11:30 a.m. PW13 Vaishali Pradip Athare, the wife of the landlord of

the premises, in which the deceased residing, was serving meals to

her husband at around 11:30 a.m. of 27-05-2016. She heard loud

cries outside her residence. She came out towards the entrance

2 of 4

905-CrApl-653-20.odt

and people gathered outside told her that there is something

untoward occurring on the terrace of the house. She, therefore,

climbed the staircase and while climbing up the staircase, the

accused was stepping down from the same staircase. He was

holding a blood stained sickle in his hand and there were blood

stains on his person. PW13 went to the terrace and found that the

victim was lying in a pool of blood.

4. The informant was the tenant of PW13 and the victim

was the daughter of Laxmi who is the real sister of the informant's

wife. The evidence also indicates that the accused had developed

one-sided affection towards the deceased and was attempting to

make advances. He was insisting on marrying the deceased.

Evidence also indicates that the victim had given her consent to

marry another person and the marriage was arranged. This seems

to be the motive for the accused to travel from Pune to the

residence of the deceased in Ahmednagar.

5. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that he

would canvas his application for suspension of the substantive

sentence and bail, after receipt of the appeal paper book.

6. In view of the above, the appeal is ADMITTED. The

learned prosecutor waives service on admission.

3 of 4

905-CrApl-653-20.odt

7. At this stage, as we are not convinced to grant any

relief to the applicant, we request the trial Court to prepare the

appeal paper book in Sessions Case No. 279 of 2016 decided on

27-10-2020 and transmit the same along with the original record

and proceedings to this Court, on or before 31-07-2021.

8. At the request of the learned advocate, we are keeping

the application pending so as to be considered on it's merits after

the receipt of the appeal paper book.

(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

SVH

4 of 4