Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1575
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
B.R. GAVAI, M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
Ramkrishna - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 413 and 366 of 2017
Decided On : 12-03-2018
For the Appellant : C.R. Thakur
For the Respondents: T.A. Mirza
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Section 394, 302, 411 - Sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life – Offence of Murder – Appeal against Conviction - Appellant stopped the said truck - Deceased was driving said truck and one was in the truck. Appellant took the driver seat - He talked with the deceased saying that they would sell the scrap material and divide the sale price between them, but the deceased was not ready. On border, truck was stopped. Deceased purchased liquor - They both consumed liquor - Near camp, appellant stopped truck by side of bridge - He again asked deceased to sell material and divide sale price between them. But, again, he denied. Appellant took out knives and stabbed the deceased - Truck was not reached to the destination - Therefore, owner of the truck searched said truck - Said truck was found near Society - Appellant was driving the said truck. Complainant inquired with appellant - He gave evasive replies - Held, pertinent to note that one Bharat Bansod was sitting in the cabin when the truck started from Wardha. As per evidence (PW 19), Computer Engineer, on examination of CCTV footage, he found that four persons were sitting in the cabin of truck at Toll booth gate. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show that accused was only person in the company of deceased. Possibility of other persons, who were sitting in the truck, committing murder of deceased cannot be ruled out. Recovery of weapons was from the open space and therefore, not useful to the prosecution Recovery of theft material from the premises of appellant itself do not show that he was purchaser of stolen property. No evidence to show that premises belongs to accused Jugna. No other evidence was led by prosecution to show appellant purchased the theft material from appellant - Circumstances which are relied by trial Court are not sufficient to convict both the appellants. Hence, we allow both the appeals and proceed to pass the following order - Criminal Appeal is allowed.
M.G. Giratkar, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2017 is filed by appellant Ramkrishna s/o. Sitaram Darwate challenging his conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide Judgment and Order dt. 19.7.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2014, by which he is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Ramkrishna is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2017 is filed by appellant Jugnu s/o. Sewalal Shahu challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is as under :
On 13th March, 2014, deceased Nilesh loaded zinc from L.G. Company in Truck No. MH31/AP7821 to unload it at Uttam Value Service, Bhugaon, Wardha. The said truck was owned by complainant Kola Shriniwas Rao (PW-1). After unloading Zinc at Uttam Value Service, the truck was further loaded with Zinc and Copper scrap for unloading at L.G. Company, Hingna, Nagpur.
2. Appellant Ramkrishna was knowing Nilesh. He was knowing that Nilesh was to unload truck at Hingna. He made a plan to sell the scrap material to appellant Jugnu. Deceased brought the said truck from Wardha. Appellant Ramkrishna talked with deceased. Appellant with a preplan went to Wardha at about 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, he went to Waigaon square. He was waiting for the deceased. At about 8.30 p.m., deceased came with the truck.
3. Appellant stopped the said truck. Deceased was driving the said truck and one Bharat Bansod was in the truck. Appellant Ramkrishna took the driver seat. He talked with the deceased saying that they would sell the scrap material and divide the sale price between them, but the deceased was not ready. On the Wardha border, truck was stopped. Deceased purchased liquor. They both consumed liquor. Near Borkhedi camp, appellant Ramkrishna stopped the truck by the side of bridge. He again asked the deceased to sell the said material and divide the sale price between them. But, again, he denied. Appellant Ramkrishna took out knives and stabbed the deceased.
4. The truck was not reached to the destination. Therefore, owner of the truck searched the said truck. The said truck was found near New Mangaldham Society, Bajrangnagar, Wadi, Nagpur. Appellant Ramkrishna was driving the said truck. Complainant Kola Shriniwas Rao inquired with appellant Ramkrishna. He gave evasive replies.
5. Kola Shriniwas Rao lodged report (Exh. 20). Appellant Ramkrishna was arrested. He confessed to show the place where he sold the scrap material. Accordingly, his confessional statement was recorded. As per his confessional statement, scrap material worth Rs. 14 Lacs was recovered from the place belonging to appellant Jugnu. Thereafter, appellant Jugnu was arrested for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. API Pravin Madhukarrao Kale (PW 23) investigated the crime. After complete investigation, filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 411 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagpur.
7. Charge was framed at Exh. 5. Prosecution has examined in all 23 witnesses. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court convicted both the appellants as mentioned above.
8. Heard Mr. C.R. Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellants. He has submitted that the case of prosecution i
