1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1291 OF 2003 Prabhakar Mahadeo Shigvan ] Age: 55 years, R/o. Pave Khamshet, Tal. Guhagar, Dist. Ratnagiri, At present in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur, Dist. Kolhapur 416007, Maharashtra ] ...Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra, ] ...Respondent Mr. Y.M. Choudhary for the Appellant Mr. K.V. Saste, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 3, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.):- This appeal is filed by the accused in Sessions Case No. (94 of 2002) 44 of 2003. The appellant is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to 2 suffer imprisonment for life. He is also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default, he has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The allegation against the appellant was that on 30th August, 2002 at about 4.00 a.m., he went to the house of P.W.1, and told him that the appellant committed murder of one Kisan Mohite. 3. After the charge had been framed, the accused pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried, and the prosecution tried to establish the guilt of the accused on the basis of an alleged extra- judicial confession of the accused that the blood found on certain exhibits was same as the blood group of the deceased and one of the circumstances was that the recovery of the weapon used in the crime was made at the instance of the accused. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that all these circumstances were not proved at all. Besides that, this is a case based on circumstantial evidence, and no motive for 3 committing the offence was even pleaded by the prosecution. In this connection, he refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Udaipal Singh v. The State of U.P., reported in AIR 1972 S.C. 54. 5. In the light of these submissions, we will examine, briefly, the evidence produced before the trial Court. 6. P.W. 1, Satish Vasudeo Shetye, is the owner of a room. He stated that he was residing at Guhagar along with his wife, mother and children. One Sarswati Rathod was working with him for household purposes. He was doing the business of Madi as well as agriculture. Kisan Mohite was working with him. The accused was also working with him. Two months prior to the incident, the accused had left the shop. The witness’s house and cattle-shed were situate at Bimbadi, Musalman Mohalla. Kisan Mohite was residing in that house. On the day of Gokulashtami, he was in his house. At about 4.00 a.m., the accused came to his house, and told him that he committed murder of Kisan Mohite. Then he went to the house of his relative Dattatray Shetye and awakened him. 4 The accused told them that he would show the dead body. Thereafter, they went to the house of the witness at Musalman Mohalla, and found that the dead body of Kisan was lying outside the compound wall. The witness saw that the deceased had sustained grievous injury on his stomach. He awakened the persons who reside in the vicinity, and returned to his home. He went to the police station and lodged the complaint. This complaint was reduced into writing by the police and he identified the complaint and also identified his signature. The complaint is Exhibit 7. He further stated that at the time of the incident, the accused was wearing T shirt. There were blood stains on the T shirt, and he could identify the T shirt. 7. In cross-examination, the witness said that the distance between Khershet and Bimbadi, Musalman Mohalla, was about 10 kms. He went to police station approximately at 5.00 p.m., and returned to his house at about 7.00 a.m. 8. P.W. 2, Suchita Satish Shetye, is the wife of P.W. 1. She also narrated what has been narrated by P.W. 1. P.W. 3, 5 Dattatray Madhusudan Shetye, is the nephew of P.Ws. 1 and 2. On the day of Gokulashtami at about 4.00 a.m., P.W. 1 came to his house and informed that the accused committed murder of Kisan. 9. P.W.4, Dr. Subhash Purushottam Javalgikar, is the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. This witness found 11 injuries on the dead body, and, according to him, the injuries were sufficient, in ordinary course of nature, to cause death. 10. P.W. 5, Ail Ramchandra More, was called by police to act as a panch, and one T shirt and half pants of the accused were seized by the police. He was also witness to another panchnama. This witness referred to one chaddar which was recovered at the instance of the accused. 11. In cross-examination, this witness denied that articles 1 to 4 were lying at the police station. He agreed that they were recovered on that day. Spot panchnama was prepared on the spot. 6 12. P.W.6, Narsingh Manyabapu Bhosale, is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and sent the body for post-mortem and recorded statements of the witnesses. He also collected blood samples of the accused and sent the samples to the Regional Forensic Laboratory. These reports are Exhibits 22 and 23. These reports do not disclose as to what was the blood group of the deceased. 10. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.