Guilt must be established based on concrete evidence; stray references or general accusations are insufficient for conviction.

ORDER

1. The appellant, along with three other offenders, were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") by the Court of Sessions, Akola in the State of Maharashtra. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- on conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.3000/- on conviction under Section 307, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently with default imprisonment stipulations. His appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed by the High Court by a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench on 19th April 2010. In the present appeal, he assails the said judgment of the High Court.

2. Allegation against the appellant is committing murder of one Nitin Dhanurdhari (the deceased) and causing injury to another person, Santosh Adagale in the early hours of 20th April 2003 (3.30 a.m.) while the victims were sleeping on a platform of a temple in the locality of Akola. The conviction under Section 307 of IPC was for causing injury to said Santosh Adagale, who was at the same spot with the deceased victim. The latter has deposed as PW-1 in the trial. The other offenders, who were implicated in the same set of offences are Sau. Rukhmabai Shaligram Ingole, Pratima Rajesh Telgote, Shaligram Roopaji Ingole (now deceased), Sandeep Shaligram Ingole and Vikas Shaligram Ingole. The prosecution case was that the accused persons had arrived at the place of occurrence armed with sword, iron pipes etc. and had brutally assaulted the said two victims, one of whom had succumbed to injuries.

3. The Trial Court (The Court of Sessions, Akola) had acquitted the two ladies i.e., Sau. Rukhmabai Shaligram Ingole and Pratima Rajesh Telgote but convicted the other accused persons. Among the accused persons, however, was one Sachin Tayade, who was a juvenile at the material point of time and was tried under the statute applicable to juveniles.

4. As we have already indicated, the High Court, in the impugned judgment affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. The appellants case has been argued before us, by Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel. The State is represented by Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel.

5. The main case of the appellant is that there was no evidence at all against him and in support of this submission, Ms. Swaraj has taken us through the copies of FIR, order of the Trial Court framing charges, evidences of four witnesses of fact as also the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-12). Other documents forming part of the records were also cited, but these were the key materials she relied upon. The FIR was made by Sheela Chintaman Dhanurdhari, mother of the deceased victim (PW-3) on the same day and in the statement forming basis of the FIR, the appellant was not named as an assailant or in any other capacity as a participant in the crime. The four witnesses of fact were Santosh Mahadeo Adagale, the injured eyewitness, who deposed as PW-1, Dharam Subhash Wankhede, relative of the deceased, another eye-witness (PW-2), Sheela Chintaman Dhanurdhari, another eye-witness, (PW-3) and a lady by the name of Sheela Balram Salve (PW-4). They appear to belong to the same community as that of the deceased victim and were at the spot when the incident occurred. They also did not disclose presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence in course of their depositions, barring one exception. The only reference to the appellant in the depositions of these four witnesses of fact is in cross-examination of PW-1, where he stated that he saw the appellant running in the electric light on being woken up from sleep. In his examination-in-chief, however, in the portion in which he named arrival of the accused persons at the place of occurrence with assaulting de