Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J.:- This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan dated 3rd February, 2000 passed in Sessions Case No.202 of 1997. By this judgment, the Appellants have been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Vinod Patil had some enmity with the Appellants. On 2nd February, 1997 at around 3.30 p.m., the Appellants attacked Vinod with knives and other weapons. As a result of this attack on him, Vinod succumbed to his injuries although he was admitted to hospital for treatment. The Appellants were arrested and charged for having murdered Vinod. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the Appellants and has, therefore, found them guilty.

3. We have perused the evidence on record. We find that there is an absolute lack of evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. Although eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, six of them have turned hostile. This is a classic example of the accused being set free because there is a dearth of evidence connecting him to the victim's homicidal death.

4. The mother of the deceased, Vinod, has been examined as PW-3. She has deposed that while she and her husband were watching a cricket match on the television in the afternoon of 2nd February 1997, the deceased went out of the house. Soon she heard a hue and cry outside the house and, therefore, she went out and found the Appellants assaulting her son. She claims to have noticed Appellant No.1 with a big knife (Sura). Appellant No.2 was also armed with a knife, whereas Appellant No.3 had a short edged small knife (Chaku) in his hand. She has then stated that she noticed the Appellants inflicting blows with the weapons in their hands on the left hand, chest, neck and the right thigh of her son. On seeing this incident, she raised an alarm and her husband rushed out of the house. The Appellants fled away from that spot. She and her husband immediately rushed the victim to the police station with the help of his two friends, one Subhash and Shaikh. The victim was then taken to hospital and an FIR was lodged with the police by her husband. She has stated that in all probability the Appellants assaulted her son since he had questioned Appellant No.1 about him having assaulted one Ashish who was the victim's friend. This incident had occurred about four to eight days prior to the assault on her son. This witness has admitted that there were some criminal cases pending against her son Vinod. She has disclosed that the arms that the Appellants carried on that day were wrongly mentioned by her when she made a statement before the police. She has then deposed about the weapons which, according to her, each of the Appellants carried on that fateful day.

5. Shaikh, whomPW-3 mentioned in her deposition as the person who helped carry her son to the police station, has been examined as PW-6. This witness has been declared hostile. He has not spoken having helped the victim's parents to put the victim in an auto-rickshaw in order to remove him to the hospital. He has only mentioned that he saw a tall, fair complexioned person assaulting the deceased with a knife and he raised a hue and cry. This led to the victim's parents coming to the spot about five to ten minutes thereafter. PW -3 has stated that she went out of the house instantaneously after hearing the hue and cry and, therefore, claimed to have witnessed the entire incident. Obviously, this is an uncorroborated testimony of PW-3.

6. The panch witnesses who have been examined to prove the spot panchanama, inquest panchanama have all turned hostile. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. Each of them has stated that they were made to sign the panchanama at the police stati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document