Case: Ganesh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Police Station Officer

between the appellant and deceased on account of outstanding amount. Therefore, amount was outstanding against the appellant cannot be taken into consideration as a motive to commit an offence.15. Learned trial Court has taken into consideration the recovery of weapon from the appellant. It is pertinent to note that after lodging the report by P.W. 1, Investigating Officer arrested the appellant on 31-3-2011. There is nothing in the evidence of any of the witnesses including the Investigating Officer to show how and why the appellant was arrested. P.W. 3 has stated about the confessional statement of appellant and recovery of two knifes, blood stained clothes etc. The confessional statement is at Exhibit 44 and recovery panchanama is at Exhibit 45.16. Spot panchanama is proved by P.W. 8 Hasan Ali. He has stated in his evidence that on 27-3-2011, PSI Ingawale called him on the spot of incident. Spot panchanama, Exhibit 70 was prepared in his presence. At the time of spot panchanama, one motorcycle was lying on the spot, one goggle, one pair of plastic chappal and chain of yellow colour were lying there. One belt, one knife was also lying on the spot of incident. It is pertinent to note that the knife was having blood stains.17. The Investigating Officer called the dog squad. Smell of belt was given to dog but that dog did not show any way. The said belt was also sent to Finger Print Expert to show that fingers of appellant was there but report of Finger Print Expert, Exhibit 94 shows that the finger prints were not valid.18. Two witnesses were examined by the prosecution to show that belt was purchased by the appellant but report of the Finger Print Expert, Exhibit 95 shows that there was no finger print of appellant. Hence, this evidence is not useful to the prosecution.19. Appellant was arrested on 31-3-2011. He was examined by Dr. Dahake. He found four minor injuries. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that if a person fall from running two wheeler, then such injuries can be caused.20. Recovery of weapon is not the material circumstance against the appellant. It is not established by cogent evidence that the weapon/knife which was seized from the accused was the same weapon examined by the Chemical Analyser. As per the spot panchanama, one knife was seized, it was blood stained. As per the recovery panchanama, Exhibit 45, two knives were seized from the accused. Chemical Analyser report, Exhibit 22 shows that only two knives were examined by the Chemical Analyser. Only on one knife human blood of Group B was found. As per the Chemical Analysers report, Exhibit 20, blood group of deceased was B. Blood group of appellant was not determined as per the Chemical Analysers report, Exhibit 21.21. It is pertinent to note that blood sample of appellant was not extracted by Dr. Dahake. Medical Officer not stated about the extraction of the blood of the appellant. Investigating Officer Ingawale also not stated about the collection of blood sample of accused. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether blood of appellant was collected and sent for chemical analysis.22. It is brought on record in the evidence of panch witness of the spot panchanama and panch witness of recovery panchanama of weapon from the accused that two knives were seized at the instance of appellant and one knife was seized on the spot of incident. It is clear from the Chemical Analysers report, Exhibit 22 that only two knives were examined by the Chemical Analyser. What about third knife is not explained by the prosecution. There might be possibility that any other person might have killed deceased and thrown the knife on the spot of incident itself. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the said knife was having blood of deceased. Hence, the recovery of weapons from the appellant cannot be taken as a circumstance against the appellant.23. First two circumstances, namely, last seen and motive are not proved by the prosecution. Third circumstance recovery of weapons is proved by the prosecution but this circumstance appears to be doubtful because one knife was found on the spot of incident and two knives were recovered at the instance of appellant. Only two knives were examined by the Chemical Analyser. Third knife was not examined by the Chemical Analyser. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that any other person might have killed the deceased and thrown the knife on the spot. Said knife was having blood of deceased cannot not be ruled out. Hence, this circumstance is also not reliable.24. In the case of B.L. Satish Vs. State of Karnataka (cited supra), Honble Supreme Court has observed that appellant convicted for murder of his grandmother aged about 75 years. Case based on circumstantial evidence. Death was by strangulation between 9.30 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on 16-6-1994. Only circumstance pitted by prosecution against accused was that on 18-6-1994, he got ornaments, case property of the case, recovered from the house of his maternal grandfather. Single circumstance was hardly sufficient for Criminal Court to reach conclusion that appellant committed the murder. Conviction was liable to be set aside.25. In the present case also, prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances of last seen and motive. The third circumstance in respect of recovery of weapons though proved, it is doubtful. There is no eye witness of the incident.26. There is no dispute about the homicidal death of deceased but prosecution has to prove that appellant is author of crime. In view of the guidelines of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra), the circumstances are not sufficient against the appellant to convict him for the offences charged against him.27. From the perusal of impugned judgment, it is clear that learned trial Court not recorded specific finding and come to the wrong conclusion. Hence, impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result, we pass the following order.ORDER (i)

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]22. It is brought on record in the evidence of panch witness of the spot panchanama and panch witness of recovery panchanama of weapon from the accused that two knives were seized at the instance of appellant and one knife was seized on the spot of incident. It is clear from the Chemical Analysers report, Exhibit 22 that only two knives were examined by the Chemical Analyser. What about third knife is not explained by the prosecution. There might be possibility that any other person might have killed deceased and thrown the knife on the spot of incident itself. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the said knife was having blood of deceased. Hence, the recovery of weapons from the appellant cannot be taken as a circumstance against the appellant.First two circumstances, namely, last seen and motive are not proved by the prosecution. Third circumstance recovery of weapons is proved by the prosecution but this circumstance appears to be doubtful because one knife was found on the spot of incident and two knives were recovered at the instance of appellant. Only two knives were examined by the Chemical Analyser. Third knife was not examined by the Chemical Analyser. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that any other person might have killed the deceased and thrown the knife on the spot. Said knife was having blood of deceased cannot not be ruled out. Hence, this circumstance is also not reliable.In the present case also, prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances of last seen and motive. The third circumstance in respect of recovery of weapons though proved, it is doubtful. There is no eye witness of the incident.26. There is no dispute about the homicidal death of deceased but prosecution has to prove that appellant is author of crime. In view of the guidelines of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra), the circumstances are not sufficient against the appellant to convict him for the offences charged against him.27. From the perusal of impugned judgment, it is clear that learned trial Court not recorded specific finding and come to the wrong conclusion. Hence, impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside.