JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. Vide both above referred appeals, life convicts, i.e. original accused nos. 1, 2 and 4, for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 364 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC], are hereby assailing the judgment and order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Sessions Case No. 02 of 2015.

FACTS IN BRIEF LEADING TO TRIAL

2. Accused No. 1 Avinash [Ankulwar] owed amount of Rs.7,28,534/- towards deceased Satyawan. A week prior to deceased going missing, deceased had purchased a house and therefore, was in dire need of funds and so he demanded dues from accused no. 1 Ankulwar. Getting annoyed by repeated demand and to avoid repayment, it is the case of prosecution that, on 07.10.2014, when deceased had been to drop his child to school, he was abducted by all accused, taken from Narsi to Bichkunda via Nizamabad in a Tata Vista car bearing registration no. MH-26-AF-1944 and at Bichkunda, they all strangulated him and thereafter dumped his motorcycle in a well and further threw the dead body in the vicinity of Shantapur Shivar. Subsequently, to cause disappearance of evidence, they poured petrol on the dead body of Satyawan and set the body on fire.

3. On 08.10.2014, as deceased had not returned, he was initially searched with near and dear ones, but he was not found. Therefore missing was lodged by brother PW1, namely, Santosh. During inquiry of missing, wife of deceased informed about financial transaction between accused no. 1 Ankulwar and her husband and therefore, accused no. 1 was summoned for inquiry. Initially accused no. 1 gave evasive answers but on in-depth inquiry, on 12.10.2014, he gave confessional statement regarding committing murder of Satyawan. Consequently PW1 Santosh set law into motion.

4. PW21 P.I. Sudhakar Jagpat [IO], who was entrusted with the investigation, carried out the same, arrested remaining three accused, drew inquest panchanama, spot panchanama, memorandum of disclosure, gathered postmortem report, sent the seizure of analysis, drew various panchanamas and finally, all four accused were chargesheeted for offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and were made to fact trial before Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, who after conducting trial, analyzed the evidence and on hearing both sides, reached to a finding that prosecution had established the charges, however, only as against accused nos. 1, 2 and 4. Accused no. 3 Umesh came to be acquitted by the same judgment dated 08.07.2016.

Hence the present appeals.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the appellants:

5. Heard learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni as well as Mr. Salunke for the respective appellants. The sum and substance of their argument is that, implication is in absence of cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence and is apparently false and on suspicion. According to them, there was no direct evidence and as such, the case was based on circumstantial evidence. However, it is their case that, prosecution had miserably failed to establish any of the circumstances relied by it. They emphasized that here, case being based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution ought to have proved motive behind the occurrence but, according to them, it had utterly failed to do so. That there is no evidence in support of so-called dues at the end of accused no. 1 or its demand.

6. Further, taking us through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it is their submission that, brother PW1 Santosh had admitted in his cross about receiving information about alleged death of Satyawan at the hands of appellant from the very police. On such count, they have criticized such case of prosecution as unworthy of credence by submitting that confessional statement has no evidentiary value.

7. By further pointing out that when PW21 IO, who has chargesheeted the appellants, had claimed about getting clue from the statement of wife of deceased regarding some financial transaction between accused no. 1 Avinash Ankulw