Bombay High Court
Sanjay Devaji Ramteke vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso P.S. ... on 9 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 239
Author: V. M. Deshpande
Bench: V. M. Deshpande, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 apeal476.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.476/2016
Sanjay Devaji Ramteke,
aged 42 years, Occ. Labour,
r/o Ambedkar Nagar,
Opp. Vipashyana Kendra,
Tq. Dist. Chandrapur. .....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
The State of Maharashtra,
through PSO, P.S. Ramnagar,
Tq. Dist. Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. C. Jaltare, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. V. A. Thakare, A.P.P. for respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED :- MARCH 9, 2020
JUDGMENT (Per : V. M. Deshpande, J.)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.86/2015. By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is directed to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.6,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 2 apeal476.16.odt is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC and for that he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.6,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed that he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as it is disclosed during the course of trial is narrated as under:
(i) Purushottam Undirwade (PW1) and appellant reside in the same locality. They were having good family relations. This prosecution witness obtained hand loan of Rs.2,000/- from the appellant and also purchased sand for an amount of Rs.1200/- on credit. Thus, he was to repay an amount of Rs.3200/- to appellant. On 30.04.2015, the appellant came to the house of Purushottam and demanded money. Upon that, he was told that the amount will be repaid after a period of one week.
(ii) On 02.05.2015, Purushottam (PW1), in the morning at 09.00 O'clock went to Bhadrawati for his work.
That time, his daughter Pratiksha (PW2) and wife Kunda, the ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 3 apeal476.16.odt deceased were present in home. Purushottam received a phone call of Pratiksha (PW2) at 10.15 a.m. and it was disclosed to him by Pratiksha that her mother has suffered injuries on her head. It was also informed to him that her maternal uncle Bandu Nimgade took her to the Government hospital. Therefore, he returned to Chandrapur and proceeded directly to the hospital to notice that his wife sustained injuries on her nose, face and was about to be taken to Nagpur for treatment. He, therefore, went to the house for bringing clothes. Thereafter, they started proceeding in an ambulance to Nagpur. However, during journey, she died. Therefore, they returned to the hospital and he went to Police Station and lodged the report.
(iii) When Purushottam (PW1) had been to Police Station to lodge report, that time API Nirmala Kinnake (PW3) was discharging duties. She registered the offence vide Crime No.217/2015 with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur against appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
(iv) As per report (Exh.-8), when Purushottam reached to hospital, on getting information on phone from Pratiksha ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 4 apeal476.16.odt (PW2), he noticed that his wife was admitted in an injured condition and treatment was going on and she was not in a position to speak. Since the injured was referred for further treatment at Medical College, Nagpur, Purushottam (PW1) went to his house for bringing the clothes. That time, Pratiksha (PW2) disclosed that when Purushottam went for his work, the appellant came to his house at 09.30 and gave Rs.50/- for purchasing kharra (mixture of tobacco and beetle nut). When she was returning after purchasing kharra, she found that the house was closed from outside and when she opened the door, she noticed that her mother was lying in an injured condition and weapon Wasla was lying there. These are the material statements in the FIR.
(v) After registration of crime, API Nirmala Kinnake (PW3) went to spot of incident and prepared spot panchanama (Exh.-18). Inquest was done over the dead body vide inquest panchanama (Exh.-19). Body was sent for post mortem and after post mortem, it was handed over to the relatives. The weapon was seized from the spot itself. API Nirmala PW3) handed over investigation to API Sohansingh Parmar (PW4).
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::
5 apeal476.16.odt
(vi) API Parmar (PW4) received the investigation papers of Crime No.217/2015 on 03.05.2015. He arrested the appellant on 06.05.2015 under arrest panchanama (Exh.-
26). During custody, API Parmar (PW4), recorded memorandum statement of appellant in presence of panchas and he agreed to show the place where he concealed his clothes. Admissible portion of his memorandum statement is exhibited (Exh.-27). Accordingly, police party, along with appellants, reached to the spot shown by the appellant, which was his house from where the clothes were seized under recovery panchanama (Exh.-28). The investigating officer also recorded statements of witnesses. He also sent the weapon wasla to the medical officer for obtaining his opinion as to whether the injuries suffered by the deceased can be caused by the said weapon under requisition letter (Exh.-29) and query report (Exh.-30) of the doctor is also available. Clothes of the deceased were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.-31). Map of the spot of incident (Exh.-32) was drawn. Muddemal articles were sent to Chemical Analyser (CA). After completion of investigation, final report was filed in the Court of learned jurisdictional Magistrate. ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::
6 apeal476.16.odt
(vii) Learned jurisdictional Magistrate found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
(viii) After committal, it was registered as Sessions Case No.86/2015. Learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, framed charge (Exh.-5) for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of the IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed for his trial. To substantiate charge, the prosecution examined in all six witnesses and also relied on various documents proved during the course of trial. The appellant was also examined by the learned trial Judge under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). He also examined one defence witness to prove his alibi.
After appreciation of the entire prosecution case, the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur delivered the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. A. C. Jaltare, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. V. A. Thakare, learned A.P.P. for respondent- State. With their able assistance, we have gone through the entire paper book and also the record and proceedings. The gist of the ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 7 apeal476.16.odt submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is as under:
(a) There is no eye witness account in this prosecution case and entire case is based on circumstances.
(b) Before the trial Court, the prosecution has relied on two circumstances;
(1) Last seen theory.
(2) Recovery of blood stained clothes at the
behest of the appellant.
(c) From the quality of evidence of Pratiksha (PW2), it
is apparent that her evidence is not trustworthy and if her evidence is excluded then there is no evidence on record to substantiate the circumstance of last seen theory.
(d) Much importance cannot be attached to the scientific evidence i.e. CA report inasmuch as the recovery of clothes of the appellant itself is doubtful.
He, therefore, submits that the appeal be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the appeal is required to be dismissed. The gist of his submissions is as under:
(a) There is a motive in this case that the accused was having love relations with the deceased and when he asked ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 8 apeal476.16.odt the deceased to run away with him, she declined. Therefore, she was done to death.
(b) According to the learned A.P.P., evidence of Pratiksha (PW2) is most natural and, therefore, her evidence has to be believed that the appellant was lastly seen in the company of the deceased.
(c) Learned A.P.P. relies on scientific evidence which shows that the appellant's clothes were found to be stained with blood of group "A". The blood group of deceased was also "A". He, therefore, prays dismissal of appeal.
5. Dr. Bhaskar Sonarkar (PW5) is doctor who conducted autopsy on body of deceased. On 02.05.2015, he was discharging his duties as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Chandrapur. On the said day, duty of conducting post mortems was entrusted on him. Dead body of Kunda was brought for post mortem. He conducted autopsy over it. On external examination, Dr. Sonarkar (PW5) found injuries on her face, head, chest, buttocks, hands and foot. He found following injuries:
"1. Five lacerated wound over frontal bone of scull.
A. 0.5 X 2 X 5 CM.
B. 0.5 X 2 X 3 CM.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::
9 apeal476.16.odt
C. 0.5 X 2 X 4 CM.
D. 0.5 X 1 X 3 CM.
E. 0.5 X 2 X 6 CM.
2. One lacerated would over left parietal bones of 0.5 X 1 X 4 CM.
3. One lacerated would below right eye on nose of 0.1 X 1 X 8 CM.
4. Fractures:
A. 2 X 2 X 4 CM over frontal bone.
B. 2 X 2 X 5 CM over frontal bone.
C. 2 X 2 X 4 CM over left parietal bone.
D. Fracture of right zygomatic bone of fact.
5. Abrasions:
A. 1 X 6 CM.
B. 1 X 7 CM.
C. 1 X 5 CM.
All the abrasions over right umbilicus.
All the injuries were fresh, red, sign of
inflammation present and were ante-mortem in nature."
The post mortem report is at Exh.-35. From the evidence of Dr. Sonarkar, it is clear that the injuries, as noticed in the post mortem report (Exh.-35), cannot be the self inflicted injuries though tried to be suggested to Dr. Sonarkar (PW5) and which suggestions were, of course, stoutly denied by Dr.Sonarkar. ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::
10 apeal476.16.odt
6. We have no hesitation in our minds to record a finding that the deceased Kunda died homicidal death.
7. Now, the question that falls for determination of this Court is whether prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant, who is author of injuries on the dead body of Kunda as noticed by the autopsy surgeon.
8. From a minute scrutiny of the entire prosecution case, it is clear to us that nobody has witnessed the actual assault on the deceased Kunda inasmuch as there is no eye witness account in the prosecution case. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstances.
9. Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra; reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, is the guiding light to the Court to evaluate the evidence to reach to the conclusion on the basis of the circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 153 in the said judgment ruled that following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::
11 apeal476.16.odt "(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra reported in SCC (Cri) 1047, where the following observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 12 apeal476.16.odt show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
Now, let's examine the prosecution case in the light of the aforesaid principles.
10. According to learned A.P.P. there is a motive on the part of appellant to eliminate deceased. As per his submissions, investigating officer Sohansingh (PW4) during investigation found that there were love relations between deceased and appellant and appellant asked deceased that she should flee away with him and when she declined, she was done to death.
Let's scrutinize whether the prosecution has proved that the appellant was having any motive to eliminate the deceased.
11. From evidence of Purushottam (PW1), who is husband of deceased, he was having family relations with the appellant. Not only that, he had obtained a hand loan of Rs.2,000/- and purchased sand worth Rs.1200/- on credit. On 30.04.2015, appellant came to Purushottam and demanded money. Upon that, as per evidence of Purushottam, he agreed to pay amount in the next week. It is not the evidence of Purushottam that due to refusal to pay money on 30.04.2015, the appellant was enraged ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 13 apeal476.16.odt and there was any dispute between them on the said day. Even during the course of his cross-examination, he admitted that there was no dispute between him and the appellant nor there was any sort of dispute between the appellant and the deceased. His cross- examination would show that they used to exchange visits with each others house.
Even Pratiksha (PW2) also does not state from the witness box that there was any dispute between the two families.
12. It is only investigating officer Sohansingh (PW4) deposed before the Court that during investigation, he found that accused was in love relation with deceased and asked her to flee away and when she declined, he brought wasla and murdered her.
Though aforesaid bold statement was made by the investigating officer, during investigation he could not record statement of any witness to throw light on the relationship between the deceased and the appellant. The prosecution has not examined any witness in that behalf. Not a circumstance is brought on record to show love relations between appellant and deceased. In absence of anything on record, we are not prepared to accept the submission made on behalf of learned A.P.P. that ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 14 apeal476.16.odt there was love relation between appellant and deceased. We reject submission and the evidence of the investigating officer for want of corroboration that there was love affair between deceased and appellant and on refusal by the deceased to flee away with the appellant, she was assaulted by the weapon wasla. Thus, in our considered view, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that there was any motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of Kunda. It is a trite law that motive plays a very important role in the cases solely based on the circumstances.
13. The circumstance, which is heavily relied upon by the prosecution is that the appellant was lastly seen in the company of the deceased. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution has examined Pratiksha (PW2). Except testimony of this prosecution witness, there is no other witness to claim that the deceased was found lastly in the company of the appellant.
14. The testimony of Pratiksha (PW2) is seriously challenged by learned counsel for appellant. According to the learned counsel, there is no corroboration to her testimony and therefore her evidence is required to be discarded. ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::
15 apeal476.16.odt
15. Purushottam (PW1) is the first informant. In the report (Exh.-8), he reported thus:
"ek>h iRuhyk iw<hy mipkjkdjhrk esMhdy gkWLihVy ukxiwj ;sFks jsQj dsY;kus eh diMs ?ks.;k djhrk ?kjh xsyks vlrk ek>h ewyxh ukes izrh{kk ghus eyk lkaxhrys dh] rwEgh dkekyk xsY;kuarj lat; jkeVsds jk- vkacsMdj uxj gk 9-30 ok ?kjh vkyk o [kjkZ vk.k;yk R;kus eyk 50:- fnys eh [kjkZ vk.k.;kl xsyks o [kjkZ ?ksowu ?kjh ijr vkyks vlrk njoktk ckgs:u dMh ykoysyk gksrk eh njoktk [kksywu ikghys rsOgk vkbZ xaHkhj t[keh voLFksr [kkyh tehuhoj iMysyh gksrh rhP;k cktwyk oklyk iMysyk gksrk vls rhus eyk lkaxhrys- "
16. Pratiksha (PW2) is aged about 16 years and she is taking education. Her evidence would show that on the previous day of incident i.e. on 01.05.2015, there was marriage anniversary of her parents and for the said ceremony her elder aunt's daughter by name; Karishma Pandey had been to her house and was staying with them. Her evidence shows that on the date of the incident when she was present in the house, the appellant came to her house and asked Karishma whether she has kharra. On getting negative reply from Karishma, as per the evidence of Pratiksha, appellant asked Karishma to bring kharra and handed over currency note of Rs.50/- to her. Therefore, she and Karishma went for bringing karra by informing her mother. At that time, her ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 16 apeal476.16.odt mother was alone in the house and the appellant was sitting in the chair. Evidence of Pratiksha, regarding informing her mother is found to be a proved improvement. Similarly, her evidence that the accused was sitting on a chair is also a proved omission. Thus, in that behalf there is an improvement from her previous police statement. Evidence of Pratiksha further shows that after 15-20 minute, when she came with kharra, while coming she noticed that appellant was going hurriedly by bolting door from outside.
17. We have also reproduced relevant portion of the FIR. Neither the FIR nor the substantive evidence of Purushottam, father of Pratiksha show this important piece of information that Pratiksha noticed the appellant going hurriedly by bolting the door from outside, was disclosed to him. In our view, this was the most important piece of information. Pratiksha (PW2) is known to the appellant since family of the appellant and the deceased were on visiting terms. It would look very unnatural that Pratiksha, who was sent by appellant for bringing kharra and when she was returning after purchasing kharra, noticed that appellant was going away from her house by bolting the door from outside, will not disclose this vital piece of information to her father. ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::
17 apeal476.16.odt
18. From the evidence of Pratiksha, Karishma Pandey, her elder aunt's daughter, was also present in the home. Not only that, as per the evidence, appellant did not ask for kharra to Pratiksha but he asked for kharra to Karishma and when he got negative reply, he handed over a currency note of Rs.50/- to Karishma and Karishma and Pratiksha went to purchase kharra. Thus, reason for leaving the house by Pratiksha was to accompany Karishma to purchase kharra. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, Karishma is not examined by the prosecution as its witness. Therefore, though, the witness was available for corroboration to the version of Pratiksha when she left her mother along with the appellant, to purchase kharra remains it remains uncorroborated, without there being any explanation from the prosecution.
19. Evidence of Pratiksha further discloses that after 15-20 minutes, she came along with kharra. That postulates that she went to a shop to purchase kharra. Even the shop owner, from whom she purchased kharra, is not examined. Therefore, whether really Pratiksha went to purchase kharra or not is also not conclusively proved and except a bald statement of Pratiksha there ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 18 apeal476.16.odt is no other evidence for the same. Even the kharra purchased by Pratiksha is also not seized during the investigation. For non examination of Karishma or pan shop owner, in our view, Pratiksha's uncorroborated version, loses its importance. Further, nothing is brought on record as to what was the reason for the appellant to visit the house of the deceased. We have already dealt with the issue about motive in earlier part of this judgment.
20. Critical analysis of version Pratiksha (PW2), in our view, allows us to record a finding that her evidence is of such a quality that it should not be accepted without there being corroboration. Once we discard the evidence of Pratiksha, there is no other evidence of whatsoever in nature to show that deceased was found in company and/or appellant was found to be present in the house of the deceased.
21. Another circumstance that is pressed into service by the prosecution is the blood stained clothes of the appellant seized on his memorandum statement.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::
19 apeal476.16.odt
22. Fulchand Zade (PW6) is the person in whose presence the appellant gave his disclosure statement to investigating officer Sohansingh (PW4) that he would show the place and clothes which were on his person at the time of commission of offence. Admissible portion is at Exh.-27. Recovery panchanama is at Exh.-
28. From cross-examination of Fulchand (PW6), it was submitted by learned counsel for appellant that nothing occurred during the presence of this prosecution witness and therefore the Court should reject outrightly the memorandum statement of the appellant and consequent recovery.
23. Though from cross-examination of Fulchand (PW6), it appears that nothing occurred in his presence, still admissible portion and recovery panchanama (Exhs. 27 and 28) are duly proved by the investigating officer and we have no reason to disbelieve the said version of the investigating officer. During the course of investigation, muddemal articles including clothes of the appellant were sent to CA. The CA reports are available in the record and proceedings and those are part and parcel of the paper book from page nos. 80 to 89. Though, those documents are not formally exhibited, in view of the law laid down by this Court in ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 20 apeal476.16.odt Omprakash Nirmalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2016 All M.R. (Cri.) 3337, those CA reports can be admitted in evidence. As per the CA report, blood group of the deceased was "A" and as per CA report (Exh.-82), clothes of the appellant were found to be having human blood of group "A".
24. Learned A.P.P. heavily relied upon this circumstance against the appellant.
25. Contemporary document, recovery panchanama (Exh.-
28) is conspicuously silent in respect of "sealing" of the clothes on the spot. Evidence of Fulchand (PW6) does not show that steps were taken by the investigating officer to seal the clothes of the appellant. Evidence of the investigating officer Sohansingh (PW4) is also silent on this aspect. He did not depose that after seizure, he applied seal to the bundle of clothes. Seizure form (Exh.-28A) regarding clothes of the appellant is also not having specimen of seal as given in format. Ultimately, during cross-examination, the investigating officer was required to admit that inadvertently it remained. Contemporaneous documents and evidence of the prosecution witness Fulchand (PW6) and even the evidence of ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 21 apeal476.16.odt investigating officer does not show that clothes of appellant were sealed after those were seized from the spot. In Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra; reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 1566 and Mohd. Iqbal alias Munna s/o Abdul Sattar and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO P.S. Lakadganj, Nagpur; reported in 2016 All MR (Cri) 4530, it is the direction of the Court that where evidence of the investigating officer shows that after effecting recovery of articles he did not affix the lac seals on them, no evidentiary value can be attached to said recovery.
Similarly, on earlier occasion also, in Lalchand Cheddilal Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra, reported in 2000 (3) Mh. L. J. 438, this Court discarded scientific evidence when it was noticed that articles stained with blood were not sealed.
26. In that view of the matter, no importance can be attached to the CA report and the said cannot be used as an incriminating material against the appellant. In addition to that even when appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the said incriminating material was not brought to his notice and thereby opportunity to furnish explanation was also denied to him.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::
22 apeal476.16.odt
27. According to the prosecution, the weapon that was used in the crime is wasla. If the evidence of Pratiksha (PW2) is to be believed that when she was present in the house, appellant came, however, her evidence is totally silent that when the appellant came to her house that time he was armed with any weapon like wasla. Not only that, even during the intervening period when Pratiksha went for bringing kharra, as per the prosecution case, anybody has seen the appellant again returning to the house of deceased along with the weapon wasla. The weapon was seized from the spot itself. Even the investigating officer has admitted that he did not find any witness who noticed accused taking wasla in the house. The investigating officer also admitted that he did not record statement of witness about the ownership of the said wasla. Therefore, it remains a mystery how wasla came inside the house. The reasoning, as given by the learned trial Judge, shows that all these evidence have not been evaluated in correct perspective.
28. On reappreciation of the entire prosecution case, we have no hesitation to record a finding that the chain of evidence is ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 ::: 23 apeal476.16.odt not complete. Thus, there is no reasonable ground to come to the conclusion that it is only the appellant who can be held guilty for committing murder of Kunda. That leads us to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 09.12.2016
passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.86/2015 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Appellant-Sanjay Devaji Ramteke is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellant, who is in jail, shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime.
(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (V. M. Deshpande, J.) kahale ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 02:40:46 :::