N.A. BRITTO, J.:- This appeal is by the accused, aged 24 years, who was charged and tried under sections 302, 394 and 201, I.P.C. and who has been convicted and sentenced under sections 302 and 394. I.P.C. for having robbed and murdered Smt. Aneya @ Baby Kerkar, aged 42 years, to life imprisonment and to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- on each count in default to undergo further imprisonment of six months.

2. The case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution, the accused and the deceased were known to one another and on 28.11.2002, the accused phoned the deceased twice, as stated by her daughter, and thereafter the deceased Aneya left the house after 10.00 a.m. and whilst going, took with her a telephone bill to be paid, and her daughter's slippers to be exchanged, and on her way to Pernem, she took a lift from Sudin Malik/P.W.13 at about 10.30 a.m. from Suke Kulan to Pernem, near Sandesh Printers, (and not near the watch shop, where according to her daughter Sweta Kerkar/P.W.1, the accused had promised to meet her) and that was the last seen of her. It appears that her husband Anant/P.W.4, searched for her on the same day by going about to several places as she had not come, and on 29.11.2002, gave a missing report at Pernem Police Station; it appears that the deceased Aneya as well as the accused, resided within the jurisdiction of the Pernem Police Station but the said missing report has not been produced by the prosecution and what was produced at the eleventh hour was a format with inputs about the missing person (Exhibit 81). On 30.11.2002, the Investigation Officer/P.W.22, who at the relevant time was in charge of the Anjuna Police Station, received information from his counterpart at Mapusa Police Station, stating that some mortal remains were seen at the hillock at Mama, Siolim, which area is presumably closer to the Mapusa Police Station, and pursuant thereto, P.W.22 Wilson D'Souza, visited the place and conducted the inquest/ scene of offence panchanama. This he did after registering a case of V.D. and what he found there was a jaw bone and a skull, which was later opined to be that of an adult female in the age group of 40 to 45 years and also some hair regarding which no effort was made to find out whether it related to the same skull, assuming that such an exercise was possible, and besides the I.O. also found a white printed saree (Exhibit 1), a black blouse (Exhibit 2), black sandals (exhibit 3), a silvertoering (exhibit 4), a ghagra (Exhibit 5), white sandals (Exhibit 6), shoulder bag (Exhibit 7), which were later on 1-12-2002 were identified by her daughter, son and husband as belonging to the deceased and on the basis of the same, it was presumed that the said mortal remains were those of the deceased Smt. Aneya.

3. After the deceased Aneya had not returned home on 28-11-2002, her husband P.W.4/Anant along with his brother-in-law Ramakant Tulaskar went in search of her and even went to the Pernem Police Station to find out whether his wife, the deceased Aneya, had met with an accident and on the next morning i.e. on 29-11-2002 P.W.4/Anant along with Panchayat Member Pradip along with a photograph lodged a missing report. On 1-122002 on being informed through P.I. Pernem Police Station the daughter (P. W.1), the husband (P.W.4) and the son (P.W.5) came to the Anjuna Police Station and the F.LR. came to be lodged at about 9.00 hours by P.W.11 Sweta only after seeing the mortal remains and the clothes and other articles found at the scene. We have already stated that the missing report lodged by P.W.4/Anant at the Pernem Police Station has not been produced by the prosecution. The said report would have provided corroborative evidence not only as regards the circumstances in which the deceased Aneya had left the house but also the description of her clothes and her gold ornaments. Instead of producing the said missing report, what was pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document