The importance of detailed evidence at the trial stage and the difficulty in drawing conclusions based on deficiencies in the investigation alone.

JUDGMENT

Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Hearing was conducted through Video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Heard.

3. Admit.

4. The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. This appellant has been arraigned in Crime No.770 of 2019 registered at Police Station, Khaparkheda for an offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also offences punishable under Section 3 and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. The complaint against this appellant/co-accused has been filed by one Shishupal Bagde at about 15.16 hours on 01.12.2019.

6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, there are discrepancies in the police investigation and these discrepancies create a veritable doubt regarding the exact role of this appellant and also his complicity in serious crime like that of murder of one Mangesh Bagde.

7. The discrepancies that have been pointed out are as follows:-

(i) The clothes of this appellant, have not been seized by the police, although, he has been alleged to have taken actual part in the commission of murder of one Mangesh Bagde;

(ii) There is no MLC report collected by the investigating officer, disclosing the material facts relating to carrying of the dead body of Mangesh Bagde to the hospital.

(iii) The owner of the car by which the dead body of Mangesh Bagde was taken to the hospital, has not been traced out and consequently, his statement has not been recorded;

(iv) Although, the crime has been registered at 15.16 hours of 01.12.2019, the spot panchnama shows that the entire action relating to drawing of the spot punchanama started well before 13.45 p.m. of 01.12.2019, which lasted till about 15.15 hours of 01.12.2019 and that there is no explanation whatsoever given by the investigating officer in this regard, thereby, creating doubt over the genuineness of the investigation made in the present case;

(v) One eye witness, Nasim Iqbal Khan, who had reached the spot of incident much before the other witnesses and who had seen the incident, has attributed a minor role to the present appellant in the sense that he has alleged the present appellant as giving fist and kick blows to the deceased while the fatal stone blow was given by the co-accused of the appellant;

(vi) One important witness, Nagsen Chankapure, who had informed Kamlesh Chankapure, to whom the oral dying declaration has been alleged to have been made, did not see the deceased Mangesh as lying at the spot of incident and what was seen by him was only one black Pulsar motor cycle lying at the spot of incident.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as these discrepancies have not been explained anywhere in the material collected so far by the investigating officer and in any case, no major role having been attributed to the present appellant, the appellant deserves to be released on bail.

9. The prayer so made has been strongly opposed by shri Pathan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and in support of his submissions on resistance, he has also taken us through the evidence collected during the course of investigation by the police.

10. On going through the FIR, the spot panchnama, the statement of the important witnesses, at this stage, we find that there is sufficient material available on record to make out a prima facie case against this appellant for the offences registered against him.

11. There are many discrepancies in the investigation done by the police as alleged and they have been pointed out by us in the earlier paragraph. But, we do not think that at this stage, these discrepancies could be gone into and any opinion could be recorded by us regarding their having any impact finally on the prosecution case as much which would depend upon the quality of the evidence that would be adduced on merits of the matter