Case: Vijay Pandurang Palaskar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

2. The story of the prosecution is that the deceased Chandrakant was employed as a watchman in Amar Society. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were his friends. They often visited Chandrakant at Amar Society. On 22.4.2002 Chandrakant was seen together with accused Nos. 1 and an unknown person by some of the prosecution witnesses. At midnight, the complainant in this case saw Chandrakant, accused No.1 and another person walk through the premises of Amar Society. The deceased Chandrakant was walking between accused No.1 and the other person. He saw them going towards Hanuman Nagar, talking to each other. At about 1.30 am. on 23.4.2002 about 10 to 15 women noticed one person lying near the gate of a bungalow near Amar society. They informed the complainant who was on duty at Amar Society. When he and another watchman reached the spot, they noticed Chandrakant lying in a pool of blood with several injuries on his neck and chest. The complainant informed the Chairman of the Housing Society who in turn informed the police. The inquest panchanama and spot panchanama were drawn by the police on arrival at the spot. An offence was registered against accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of the complaint lodged with the police. Both the accused were arrested on 23.4.2002. A gupti was recovered at the instance of accused No.1 on 4.5.2002. A knife was recovered on 3.5.2002 at the instance of accused No.2. The accused were charged for having murdered Chandrakant. They were tried by the Sessions Court, Pune. While accused No.2 was acquitted, accused No.1 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly.3. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses to support its case against the accused. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence as there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The main circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that, the victim was last seen in the company of the accused about one and half hours prior to the incident by the complainant. The other circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that a blood stained gupti was recovered at the instance of accused No.1. The third circumstance which the prosecution claims to have proved is the recovery of blood stained clothes of accused No.1.

Court's reasoning:
14. Taking into consideration the evidence which was led before the Sessions Court, we find that the prosecution has established the circumstances which unmistakably point to the involvement of the appellant. The victim was last seen together in the Company of the appellant. The victim was found lying in a pool of blood. The appellant was not found anywhere near the spot of the incident nor did he inform the police that the victim had been assaulted by some other person. The appellant has not been able to show that when he and the victim left the premises of Amar Society, they parted company and went their own ways. In fact, they were seen proceeding towards Hanuman Nagar. The recovery of the blood stained gupti which was found with its blade twisted, in the pipe which was embedded in the concrete foundation at the foot of Hanuman Tekdi has been proved. The medical officer has proved that the injuries could be sustained by the gupti which was recovered. Thus, the appellant has rightly been held guilty of committing murder.15. We have perused the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused No.2 and, therefore, the present appellant cannot seek parity. Accused No.2 was not identified by any person and on this basis he has been acquitted. Apart from this, the recovery of the knife allegedly from accused No.2 has not been proved in view of the testimony ofWe find that the Sessions Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and drawn proper conclusions and inferences.