Advocates:
['A D KANGO', 'APPOINTED', '', 'FOR FINAL HEARING', 'P P']

[1]

IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2000

APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2000

APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2000

Louis Paulo Furtado

....... Appellant.

versus

The State of Maharashtra

..... Respondents.

.....

Shri A.D.Kango advocate for the appellant -appointed.

Mrs. U.V.Kejariwal APP for the State.

.....

CORAM

CORAM

CORAM ; V.G.PALSHIKAR

; V.G.PALSHIKAR

; V.G.PALSHIKAR &&

&

ANOOP

ANOOP

ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

V. MOHTA, JJ.

V. MOHTA, JJ.

DATED;

DATED;

DATED; 14TH OCTOBER, 2004.

14TH OCTOBER, 2004.

14TH OCTOBER, 2004.

ORAL

ORAL

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Palshikar, J.);

JUDGMENT ( Per Palshikar, J.);

JUDGMENT ( Per Palshikar, J.);

1.

Being

aggrieved

by

the

the

order

of

conviction

passed

by

the

Additional

Sessions

Judge,

Greater

Bombay

in

Sessions

Case

No.487

of

1998

under

sections

302,

307,

392,

394

and

397

of

IPC

on

30/31-3-2000

the

appellant

has

preferred

this

appeal

on

the

grounds

mentioned in the memo of appeal as also orally

canvassed before us.

2.

With

the

assistance

of

the

learned

counsel

for

the

accused

and

the

learned

Prosecutor,

we

have

scrutinised

the records of the case and re-appreciated the evidence

on record.

[2]

3.

The

prosecution

case

as

emerges

from

our

reappreciation

of

evidence

stated

briefly

is

that

on

8th

February

1998

the

accused

assaulted

the

mother

of

P.w.1

and

when

she

entered

the

kitchen

she

saw

her

mother

falling

to

the

ground

and

the

accused

was

standing

there

with

a

knife

in

his

hand.

When

the

complainant

went

to

help

her

mother

the

accused

assaulted

her

also.

Thereafter

she

was

informed

the

incident

to

her

brother

and

the

matter

was

reported

to

police.

On

completion

of

investigation,

the

accused

was

charged

for

having

committed

murder

and

other

offences

in

relation

to

the

incident

of

8-2-1998.

The

prosecution

examined

as

many

as

17

wittiness

to

prove

its

case

and

the

learned

trial

Judge

on

appreciation

of

the evidence of these persons, came to the conclusion

of guilt and convicted the accused as aforesaid.

4.

P.w.1

is

the

complainant,

daughter

of

the

deceased

who

on

8-2-1998

entered

the

kitchen

to

see

the

victim

falling

to

the

ground

and

the

accused

standing

there

with

a

knife

in

his

hand.

When

she

sought

to

render

help

to

her

mother

she

states

that

she

was

also

assaulted.

She

informed

about

the

incident

to

her

brother,

telling

him

that

her

mother

was

murdered

and

she

was

also

injured

by

the

accused.

Thereupon

[3]

neighbouring

doctor,

Dr.

Parulekar

came

and

found

the

victim

dead.

She

has

proved

the

FIR

which

she

has

lodged.

She

has

been

cross

examined

and

she

identified

the

clothes

belonging

to

her

and

her

mother

and

has

given

a

detailed

description

of

the

assault

by

the

accused

on

her

mother.

P.w.2

is

inconsequential

as

he

only identified certain articles involved in the crime.

5.

P.w.3

is

Dr.

Parulekar

who

came

on

the

scene

of

offence

immediately

and

he

was

told

that

the

assault

on

the

victim

was

by

the

accused.

P.w.4

is

the

panch

witness

who

has

proved

the

panchanama

of

the

spot.

P.w.5

is

the

perso