JUDGMENT

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE,J. - By way of present appeal under Sec. 374 of Cr.P.C., the appellant/accused is challenging the Judgment and order dtd. 23/12/2021 arising out of Sessions Case No.10/2018 decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302, 394 and 201 of I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of 1,00,000.00 for the Rs. offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Similarly, for the offence punishable under Sec. 394 of IPC, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of 25,000/- and in default to undergo simple Rs. imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of IPC, the accused is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 10,000.00 and in Rs. default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the above sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. On 09/03/2022, the appeal was admitted and the Registry was directed to prepare a paper book as early as possible and to place the matter for final hearing. Records and proceedings were also called. Accordingly, after the preparation of the paper book, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel Shri Rohan Desai, appearing for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor Shri S.G. Bhobe appearing for the State at length. With the assistance of the learned Counsels, we perused the record and more specifically reasons of the learned Trial Court while convicting the accused on all counts.

4. The learned Counsel Shri Rohan Desai strenuously urged that the case of prosecution is entirely based on circumstances and prosecution has miserably failed to prove the circumstances linking the accused to the commission of the offence and forming a chain so as to consider him guilty. He submitted that on all counts prosecution has failed and evidence brought on record is not admissible and unacceptable in the eyes of law. In spite of this the accused is found guilty on the reasons which cannot be forming any conclusion about the involvement of the accused in such offence. While elaborating such arguments he submitted that the only material which has been relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is the so-called recovery at the instance of the accused. According to him, recovery under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance of the accused has been totally disproved. The witnesses who deposed before the Trial Court nowhere disclosed the exact words uttered by the accused while making such disclosure statements before the recovery could be effected.

5. The learned Counsel Shri Rohan Desai then submitted that prosecution tried to implicate the accused on the basis of last seen theory which is also unacceptable. The witnesses examined in this respect are totally shaken during cross-examination and the evidence of these witnesses inter se is destroying the case of the prosecution. He submitted that all pancha witnesses examined by the prosecution in this matter are closely related to the deceased. Even the recovery of the knife is highly doubtful. He invited attention of this Court to the evidence of certain witnesses which clearly goes to show that the accused was already in the police station two days before his arrest shown in the matter. Therefore, he submitted that conviction of the accused on these counts cannot be sustained.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor Shri S.G. Bhobe appearing for the State though tried to submit that circumstantial evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution, fairly accepted that investigation in the present matter is shaky and doubtful.

7. He submitted that the statement of Anthony who actually informed the Police on seeing the dead body was not recorded and such witness was not examined for the reasons best