The quality of the evidence of the eye witness and the presence of corroborating evidence are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

V.M. Deshpande, J.

1 This appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 9-5-2018 in Sessions Case No. 115/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge found both the appellants guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and, therefore, directed them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- by each of them with default clause.

2. We have heard Mr. Amit Band with Mr. Ashwin Wasnik, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Sanjay Doifode, learned A.P.P. for respondent-State. Learned counsel for both the appellants argued identically.

3. The main plank of their submission is that Jayshri Waghmare (PW4), who is examined as an eye witness in this prosecution case, is not an eye witness and, in fact, she is planted by the police. Their another submission is that if evidence of Jayshri (PW4) is discarded then there is no evidence to connect the appellant in the crime in question. They are also making a submission that the prosecution has not proved motive for committing murder of Pintu, the deceased. Alternatively, it is their submission that, in any case, role attributed to appellant No. 2-Sandip is that he assaulted by fists and kicks. Therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. So far as appellant no. 1-Waghya is concerned, their submission is that the incident has occurred in a spur of the moment, therefore, at the most, he could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-I of the IPC.

4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed these submissions. From reading of the evidence of Jayshri (PW4), he submitted that it cannot be said that she is a planted witness. He also submitted that the Chemical Analyser’s (CA) report corroborates the prosecution case inasmuch as the blood having group “B” was found on the clothes of both the appellants. The said blood group belongs to the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

5. Wheels of criminal justice system were set into motion by Narayan Sonwane (PW1), father of the deceased. On 29-7-2015, he came to police station and lodged his report stating therein that he came to his house after finishing his duty and he was resting. In between 09.00 to 09.15 p.m., one boy came to his house and informed that his son Pintu is assaulted near Motghare Bichayat Kendra by one Waghya and his brother and he has been taken to Civil Hospital, Wardha. Therefore, he and his wife Suman came to the Government Hospital. From there, as per the FIR, he was referred to Sewagram and he was taken in ambulance. When he has accompanied Pintu, Pintu made oral dying declaration to him that both the appellants assaulted on him when he asked them to give side.

6. Murlidhar Burade (PW9) is the investigating officer of crime No. 348/2015, which was registered on the basis of the report lodged by Narayan (PW1). He has conducted the entire investigation. During the investigation, he has seized various articles including the articles from the places which were shown by both the accused persons when their statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded, when they were in Police Custody Remand. He also recorded statements of witnesses. He sent the muddemal to the CA. His evidence would show that after completion of the usual investigation, he filed final report in the Court of learned jurisdictional Magistrate who found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. He, therefore, committed the same to the Sessions Court. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, it was registered as Sessions Case No. 115/2015. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against both the accused. Both the accused abjured their guilt and claimed for their trial.

7. In order to bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all