JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The appellant was tried for murder of Prakash Narayan Padawale under section 302 I.P.C. as also for causing injuries on Mainabai under section 323 of I.P.C. The prosecution had in fact examined 9 witnesses in support of the said charges. By impugned judgment dated 31st December, 1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, has convicted the appellant for murder under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under section 323 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 7 days. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant challenges his conviction in this appeal.

2. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged by the appellant himself. The incident is reported to have taken place at 9.00 p.m. on 2nd July, 1998 and the appellant lodged the F.I.R. on the next day morning. In this F.I.R. the appellant had given details as to how the incident in question had taken place. Besides this, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of eye-witness Mainabai P.W. 6, who is the sister of the appellant, but she did not support the prosecution case against the appellant. Two other witnesses P.W. 5-Haridas Baliram, paternal uncle of the appellant and P.W. 8-Uttam Lawate also did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution case thus primarily rests upon the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant himself with the police, motive for commission of crime and the presence of blood stains on the clothes of the appellant which were attached by the police when the appellant had gone to lodge the F.I.R. The prosecution had also led evidence of panch witnesses relating to recovery of chain at the instance of the appellant. Both these witnesses P.W. 3-Ratilal Lendave and P.W. 4-Sidheshawar Lawate also did not support the prosecution case.

3. The trial Court found that part of the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. were admissible and were not confessional in nature and relying upon them besides motive as also blood stained clothes of the appellant has recorded the conviction of the appellant as aforesaid. The trial Court also took into account that the weapons of offence iron chain and iron rod were stained with human blood of "O" group which was the blood group of the deceased.

4. The learned Advocate for the appellant after placing reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar)1, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 119 and (Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan)2, 1994(2) S.C.C. 467, urged before us that except for the motive disclosed in the F.I.R. the presence of Mainabai and the presence of blood stains on the clothes of the appellant, the entire remaining part of the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant amounts to confession and the same cannot be used against the appellant. In respect of the blood stained clothes which were found on the person of the appellant it has been urged that the blood found on the said clothes is "O" group, which is also stated to be blood group of the deceased, but the blood group of the appellant was inconclusive and in the light of the fact that according to the prosecution the appellant had also suffered injuries which could result in his blood on his clothes, the presence of blood on the clothes of the appellant is not a strong piece of evidence. It is also pointed out that no question has been put by the trial Court in relation to the blood stains on the clothes of the appellant. He pointed out that the eye-witness P.W. 6-Mainabai and two other witnesses P.W. 5-Dada Metkari and P.W. 8-Uttam Lawate had not supported the case, as also the panch relating to the recovery of the chain alleged to have been made at the instance of the appellant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He, therefore, contends that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant and the conviction which is mainl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document