Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Pramod Udaysing Shinde on 4 March, 2024
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
1 17ALS66.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
17 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 66 OF 2020
The State Of Maharashtra
VERSUS
Pramod Udaysing Shinde
...
Mrs. Uma S. Bhosale - Asst. Public Prosecutor for Applicant/State
...
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT
AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATED : 04TH MARCH, 2024
PER COURT : -
1. This is the Application by the State for seeking leave to
Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case
No.221/2012, acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable
under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
2. Heard learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the
Applicant/State. Perused the papers on record.
3. The Prosecution's case in brief is that, the informant's minor
daughter aged eight years was missing from 26.02.2012. The dead body
2 17ALS66.2020.odt
of the victim was found on 04.03.2012. An FIR was lodged by victim's
father on 16.03.2012. It is not in dispute that the only evidence against
the respondent is of 'last seen together'. For the said last seen together,
the prosecution has examined PW6 and PW7, who were the minor girls.
According to them, when they had gone to the agricultural field, they
saw the victim in the company of the Respondent, however, their
statement was recorded belatedly after twenty days from the missing
report and that sixteen days from lodging the First Information Report.
There is no other evidence against the Respondent. The observations
made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned
Judgment read thus : -
42) As stated earlier P.W.6 Ashiwini @ Bugi and P.W.7 Swati proved that
deceased was last seen in the company of accused on 26.02.2012.
Her deadbody was traced on 04.03.2012 in the field of P.W.3 Sk.
Faruq. The accused was arrested on 16.03.2012. His clothes were
seized on same day vide seizure panchanama Exh.36. As per the
evidence of P.W.3 Sk. Faruq memorandum statement of accused was
recorded in his presence. His evidence shows that API Surwase had
recorded the memorandum statement. API Surwase had called P.W.3
Sk. Faruq. The articles were seized from the field of Narayan Janjal.
He identified those articles viz; article nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12.
43) It is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of P.W.3 Sk. Faruq,
knicker of victim was recovered from the spot shown by the accused
and pink hair pin stuck with some hair was also recovered from that
spot. The hair pin stuck with the hair and the hair seized from the
field of P.W.3 Sk. Faruq belonged to the victim. It is pertinent to note
that the statements of P.W.6 Ashiwini @ Bugi & P.W.7 Swati were
recorded on 16.03.2012 and then on 22.03.2012. As per their
version they had been to house of Pawan where the accused was
also present.
44) Except P.W.3 Sk. Faruq, P.W.6 Ashiwini @ Bugi and P.W.7 Swati none
of the witnesses had stated about the complicity of the accused in
the aforesaid crime. The evidence of P.W.1 Bahadur Shinde, P.W.2
Kautiksing Shinde, P.W.4 Syed Bismilla, P.W.5 Rizwana and
3 17ALS66.2020.odt
P.W.8 Dr. Kailash Zine does not reveal the involvement of accused in
commission of crime. Evidence of P.W.3 Sk. Faruq clearly shows that
police persons had not signed the memorandum panchanama
Exh.36 in his presence. The memorandum panchanamas Exh.36,
Exh.37 and Exh.38 bear the signatures of P.W.10 investigating officer
Smt. Pallavi Barge. However, it is contradictory to the evidence of
P.W.3 Sk. Faruq. P.W.3 Sk. Faruq had not stated about presence of
P.W.10 Pallavi Barge on police station and thereafter on spot. The
child witnesses P.W.6 Ashiwini @ Bugi and P.W.7 Swati could not
answer the questions put to them regarding to the affairs of day of
procession. Memorandum statement Exh.36 and the evidence of
child witnesses were the only link to connect the incident and
accused. However, considering the fact that P.W.6 Ashiwini @ Bugi
had not answered several question put her in her crossexamination.
Her evidence is not trust worthy in credit. So far as, P.W.7 Swati is
concerned, her evidence shows that the victim was missing and
announcement was made at 4.00 p.m.
4. In view of above, we do not find merit in the Application
for Leave to Appeal and hence it is dismissed.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [R. G. AVACHAT]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/03/2024 16:59:40
