The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the 'last seen' theory.

JUDGMENT :

V. G. BISHT, J.

This is an appeal by a convict from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29th September, 2011 delivered in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/with default stipulation.

2. Short fact of the case is that the informant and accused are neighbors. The accused was on visiting terms to the house of informant. Sometime in the past the relations between the accused and informant’s daughter, namely, Shital (deceased) became strained and, therefore, both of them in a meeting were asked not to speak with each other.

3. According to prosecution, on 4th July, 2009 at about 9.00 pm., the deceased told her father that she is going to ease herself and after that she never came back. The informant and his wife tried to locate her in the vicinity but in vain.

4. On 6th July, 2009, the informant and his wife went to Sawarde Police Station and lodged a missing complaint. At this material time there was a phone call at the said Police Station enquiring about any missing person complaint as Police from Sangmeshwar had found a dead body on the bank of river Aravali. The relatives of deceased accordingly went there and confirmed that in fact the dead body was that of deceased.

5. The prosecution then contends that, later on, the informant came to know that deceased was seen on a motorcycle owned by one Rajendra Molak. After the postmortem of deceased, the informant came to know that his daughter was carrying eight month pregnancy and that was outcome of love affairs between the accused and deceased. In the circumstances, he thought that the deceased might have committed suicide. Accordingly, the informant lodged the First Information Report (FIR) with Sawarde Police Station, TalukaChiplun on the basis of which Crime No. 23 of 2009 under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC came to be registered.

6. It further appears from the record that the supplementary statement of informant-father again came to be recorded on 9th July, 2009 and in the said statement, the informant stated that on 4th July, 2009 instead of going to attend nature’s call, the deceased rang up the accused as she had started feeling labour pain because of running of ninth month of pregnancy and therefore, summoned accused. Later on, both of them went on a motorcycle and it was seen by Uday Laxman Kadam (PW5) and Surendra Babu Kadam (PW6).

7. According to informant, the deceased was taken to Dr. Nikam (PW7) of village Nandgaon and as the said Doctor told about the imminent delivery, the accused took away the deceased from there and in order to avoid the responsibility of prospective baby, committed the murder of deceased.

8. PW13 Satyajit Shashikant Amle carried out further investigation as the initial investigation was done by Assistant Police Sub Inspector Mahipat Kulye. PW13 recorded the statements of witnesses, collected specimen signature of the accused and after receipt of the report of handwriting expert and as investigation was completed, forwarded the chargesheet against the accused.

9. To substantiate the charge against the appellant-accused, the prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The appellant-accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and the appellant-accused denied all of them as false.

10. It is his further statement (Exh. 94) that he has been arrested only on the ground of suspicion. He was not having any illicit relation with the deceased and there was a relation of brother and sister. He even did not make disclosure statement before Police nor had shown the place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. He had not taken deceased on a motorcycle to any Doctor and he has been falsely implicated.

11. Ms. Roy, learn