Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Surendra P. Tavade and Ranjit More, JJ., while dismissing the present appeal upheld the trial court’s decision for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860.
Reason for appeal to be preferred
Appellant – Original accused challenged the Judgment and conviction order passed by Additional Sessions Judge of wherein the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 392 read with 397 IPC.
Facts
First informant was deceased’s daughter and worked at a sugarcane juice stall. Balli used to clean the sugarcane at informant’s place and take the same to informant’ Juice Stall. On one day, Balli when did not reach the stall, informant called the deceased to know whether the servant Balli had proceeded to the shop, to which her mother replied that his work was not over yet, and he may stay for some time and then attend the shop.
When the informant reached her house in the night, she found her mother lying in the pool of blood, with knife pierced in her chest and a deep injury on the neck.
Later, FIR was registered and during investigation through the call records, it was found that appellant was moving in the vicinity at the time of the incident. Police on searching for the appellant found him at his native place and was further arrested.
Trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 397 and 302 of IPC.
Contentions
Counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution did not prove the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant.
Adding to the above, it was also submitted that there could be a possibility of involvement of third person committing offence and appellant was wrongly convicted for the offences.
APP submitted that discovery of ornaments, blood-stained cloths from the possession of the appellant unequivocally proved involvement of the appellant in the crime.
Further appellant’s counsel submitted that even it was proved that the appellant was found in possession of stolen articles, he could not be held guilty for the charge under Section 302 IPC and at the most, he will be held guilty under Section 392 IPC.
Decision
High Court noted that the appellant had contacted PW-17 and shown him the gold articles, further the said articles were seized from the appellant. After the incident, appellant went to his native place and showed gold ornaments to PW-17.
Appellant was found in possession of the gold articles immediately after the incident. He also produced clothes that were stained with blood. Another circumstance to be noted against the appellant was that he was seen in the vicinity of the scene of offence before the incident and during the time of the incident.
This, in view of the above, trial court’s decision is upheld and the present appeal is to be dismissed. [Girvarsingh Bhagwatsingh Devda v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 315, decided on 25-02-2020]
