Point of Law; Conviction - Circumstantial evidence-Prosecution has utterly failed to prove each circumstance independently and the chain of circumstances so complete that, it leads to only hypothesis of guilt of accused and none else.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag dated 14th March, 2011 in Sessions Case No.137 of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant - accused for the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.1,000/- as fine and in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:

The deceased Sunita and her husband Vinayak were staying together at Mohopada, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad. Complainant Mohan was staying in front of their house in the same locality. On 19.7.2009 at about 7am, Mohan had gone to bring newspaper when his daughter had informed him on phone that many people had assembled in front of the house of Vinayak. Mohan immediately came and went to the house of Vinayak and saw the dead body of Sunita in a pool of blood between the kitchen and bedroom. There were bleeding injuries on her neck, cheek and arm. The cupboards were open and articles in cupboards were scattered. On enquiry, he came to know that day before the date of the incident i.e., 18.7.2009 at about 8.30 pm, the accused had visited the house of the deceased and demanded money from her. Thereafter, Mohan lodged a complaint with Rasayani Police Station and on that basis, the offence was registered at C.R. No.36 of 2009 against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 457, 460 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Investigation commenced. Inquest panchanama and spot panchanama were prepared. Two pillow covers, bedsheet, carpet stained with blood were seized from the spot. The dead body of Sunita was sent to hospital for postmortem. The accused was arrested on 22.7.2009 at Balegaon, District Solapur. Chargesheet was submitted against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 460 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned JMFC, Khalapur, who later on, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raigad Alibag.

The Sessions Court framed the charge. Thereafter, subsequently, charge under section 460 of the Indian Penal Code came to be deleted. The defence of the accused was that of total denial and false implication and he claimed to be tried.

After completion of trial, the accused was held guilty and accordingly, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code as already mentioned herein above. Hence, this Appeal.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - accused has assailed the impugned judgment and order on many grounds. She submitted that the prosecution evidence was mainly of circumstantial nature. The recovery of weapon (knife) at Lonavala after a considerable period is not at all acceptable as the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant had gone to Lonavala after committing the alleged crime. She submitted that the statements of PW8 (Ayesha) and PW9 (Zarina) were not trustworthy as they themselves were guilty of misappropriation of stolen articles. There was no explanation by the prosecution as to the condition of the said knife. She submitted that the evidence in respect of C.A. report regarding blood sample of the appellant was prepared without following proper procedure. There is no details about the date and time when the blood sample of the accused was taken which vitiates the reliability of the said evidence. The learned Counsel submitted that the trial Judge failed to appreciate the existence of foot print which was found in the blood, spilled over the floor, of unknown person at the place of incident. This was clearly indicative of the presence of a third person at the relevant time. She also submitted that the motive being the alleged crime was not properly established and still, the statement of PW3 (Anandsing) was accepted at its face value. She further submitted that the objection of the appellant to the conclusion regarding th