IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious charges such as murder, was reaffirmed.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ABHAY S.WAGHWASE,J. - Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2016, holding appellants Barku and Ranjana guilty of committing offence punishable under sec. 302 read with sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

PROSECUTION STORY IS AS UNDER

2. Informant Rohidas (PW1) set law into motion alleging that, on 5/1/2016, while he was proceeding on Nagpur-Surat highway at 10:00 a.m., he saw dead body of an unknown male person lying in pool of blood with head injury. He reported the incident, on the strength of which crime bearing No.06 of 2016 was registered about murder of unknown person for unknown reasons.

3. Investigation revealed complicity of accused. Precise accusation of prosecution is that deceased was troubling accused no.2-Ranjana on account of money. Therefore, she and accused no.1-Barku took deceased after making him consume liquor and then he was assaulted and done to death. Resultantly, both accused were charge-sheeted and tried before learned Additional Sessions Judge, who, on appreciation of evidence, accepted the case of prosecution as proved beyond reasonable doubt and vide above judgment and order dtd. 27/1/2017, convicted and sentenced both appellants for imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the above, by invoking sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), appeal has been preferred by the appellants on various grounds spelt out in the appeal memo.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, there is no direct evidence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, it is his submission that, none of the circumstances relied by the prosecution are firmly and cogently proved. He took us through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and would submit that there is no evidence about accused to be in the company of deceased, but still learned trial court has held accused persons guilty. That, case of prosecution is based on assumptions and presumptions. That, there is no iota of evidence about deceased to be acquainted with accused no.2 or deceased to be staying with her and further there is no evidence that he used to trouble her for money. Thus, it is his submission that there is no material or foundation in support of accusations raised. That, even learned trial court has not considered and appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and even settled law has not been applied. Consequently, he prays to set aside the said judgment by allowing the appeal.

5. In answer to above, learned APP for the State would submit that there is cogent and trustworthy evidence about deceased to be living with accused no.2. That, he did not work or earn and moreover allegedly harassed accused no.2 for money and therefore, she connived with accused no.1 and they both initially made him drink liquor and took him to the spot. It is pointed out that, investigation revealed that deceased was done to death and his body was thrown. That, evidence of witnesses examined by prosecution has not been disturbed or shaken. Investigation revealed involvement of accused persons and therefore they were arrested and charge-sheeted. That, finding the case to be full-proof, learned trial Judge has correctly held accused guilty. According to him, there is no merit in the appeal and so she prays that the same be dismissed.

6. In the light of charge, it is first to be seen whether death of Govind is shown to be homicidal one. For getting satisfied to that extent, we have visited the evidence of autopsy doctor (PW4 Dr. Chaudhary), who, while conducting autopsy, has noticed following external and internal injuries which are as under :-

1. Lacerated injury over forehead, extends from left eyebrow mid portion till right eyebrow mid portion 7 X 2cm X bone deep horizontally, margin irregular, underlying bone fracture.

2.