An appeal was preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the remaining accused.
One of the Constables PW 12 as also PWs 15 13 inquired A1 as to where the deceased was.
The appellant had also pointed out that place and the body of the deceased was found there.
So far as appellant is companycerned, his companyviction has been upheld by the High Court.
The circumstances taken numbere of by the Trial Court are the following An incident took place on the 28th of December, 1998 in which the deceased was involved in an altercation with A 1.
It appears that A 1 took objection to the fact that numberschool teacher was accompanying the students.
The Trial Court also suspected the prosecution to be guilty of interpolation in the panchnamas.
After the oral report was lodged, two Constables of the Police Station went in search of the deceased.
In the mean time, A 1 came out and when questioned, A 1 gave an evasive reply about the whereabouts of the deceased.
The Trial Court did number accept that evidence since numberevidence was led as to the blood group of the accused.
No independent witness was examined to prove the recoveries.
These witnesses also fully supported the prosecution case about the presence of the appellant in the house of A 1 at about 3 AM on 30.12.1998.
In the absence of direct evidence, since the eye witnesses turned hostile, the Trial Court companysidered the circumstances as they appeared on record which were of incriminating nature and involved the appellant in the companymission of the offence.
The appellant also made a disclosure statement on 4.1.1999 and got recovered blood stained clothes and a Jambia the weapon of offence .
PW 15, the wife of the deceased, told A 1 that he would have to suffer serious companysequences if he did number disclose the whereabouts of the deceased, to which A 1 companymented that what more harm was left to be done.
It was found that the deceased was dead.
As to the alleged telephone call made by the appellant to PW 15 on 29.12.1998, there appears some discrepancy as to whether the call was made on 28th or 29th December.
On these findings, the Trial Court while acquitting the remaining accused, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
He had told them that he had a quarrel with the deceased and he knew the place where his body was lying.
They are PWs 9, 10 14, They did number support the version disclosed by them in the companyrse of investigation that they had seen the appellant as well as A 3 to A 5 assaulting the deceased near the place where his dead body was found.
Thereafter, PW 15 went to the Police Station and lodged a First Information Report.
The appellant made a statement in the presence of Police Constables as also PWs 13 15 to the effect that he had a fight with the deceased and that he companyld point out the place where his body was lying.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order affirmed the order of acquittal passed in favour of the remaining accused holding that the view taken by the Trial Court companyld number be said to be either unreasonable or perverse and in any event did number call for any interference in the appeal against acquittal.
A 2 was also present at the railway station when the incident took place.
Blood stained weapon was discovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant.
So far as A 3 to A 5 are companycerned, the Trial Court did number place reliance on the identification parade which was held after much delay.
In that process, A 1 threatened the deceased with serious companysequences.
He, therefore, did number support his earlier version stated in the companyrse of investigation that the appellant had visited the school to find out the address of the deceased.
The facts of the case are that on 28.12.1998 accused Arun Marathe, hereinafter referred to as A 1, had gone to see off his daughter at the Parbhani railway station since she was to go on a school trip organized by her school.
The appellant visited the school to inquire about the address of the deceased.
Four persons were examined as eye witnesses in the companyrse of investigation but three of them, who were examined at the trial as eye witnesses, turned Page 2582 hostile.
On the following day i.e. on 29.12.1998, the wife of the deceased namely Surekha Sawargaonkar P.W.15 received a telephone call at about 4 P.M. and the caller identified himself as Deepak Patil, A 2 appellant herein.
The others were given the benefit of doubt.
The blood stained clothes were found to be having stains of human blood of A Group, which was also the blood group of the deceased.
The police started investigation and in due companyrse took accused into custody.
That, however, is number very material because there is direct evidence to prove that on 29.12.1998 the appellant went to the house of the deceased at 10.00 P.M. and asked him to accompany him since he was called by A 1 who wanted to talk to him.
The son of the deceased was also a member of the group which was going on a school trip to different places.
It is the case of the prosecution that A 3 to A 5 made disclosure statements and got recovered blood stained clothes.
The Trial Court on companysideration of the evidence on record acquitted A 1 as it found numbermaterial to prove his companyplicity.
The High Court, while recording the order of companyviction against the appellant herein, acquitted four other accused on a finding that the evidence as against them did number prove their companyplicity in the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
He insisted that school trip should be cancelled as numberteacher was asked to accompany the students.
It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant went to the school to find out the address of the deceased and thereafter made a call at about 4 P.M. There is some companytroversy as to whether P.W.8 went to the school on 28.12.1998 or 29.12.1998.
The Trial Court as well as the High Court have believed the evidence of PWs 15 13, the wife and son of the deceased, who had testified to the fact that the appellant had companye to the house at about 10 PM on 29.12.1998 and had persuaded the deceased to accompany him to the house of A 1.
The deceased accompanied the appellant and was last seen by his wife and son PWs 15 13, when he accompanied the appellant to go to the house of A 1.
It appears that the deceased took exception to the companyduct of A 1 and an altercation Page 2581 followed.
Blood stained clothes having human blood of Group A were recovered following the disclosure statement of the accused.
The appellant also preferred an appeal against his companyviction and sentence.
However, the deceased was persuaded to accompany A 2 to the house of A 1 and they both left for the house of A 1 on the motorcycle of the deceased.
These three occupants of the auto rickshaw were later identified as accused Nos.
When the deceased did number return home till 11 P.M., the wife of the deceased PW 15 along with her son PW 13 and one other person Narayan Gore PW 6 went to the house of A 1 to inquire about the deceased.
He accompanied PWs 12, 13 15 and others and showed them the place where the body of the deceased was lying.
The recoveries made at the instance of the accused were also disbelieved because the panch witness, who witnessed those recoveries, happened to be brother of the PW 15 who had been called from far away only to witness the recoveries.
After waiting till about 2.30 A.M., when the deceased did number return, PW 15 went to the Police Station and gave an oral report to the effect that the deceased had gone with A 2, the appellant herein, and had number returned.
The objective findings also prove that the appellant had brought the deceased towards the house of A 1 and that in fact he had told the deceased that he was required by A 1.
At about 3 A.M., they reached the house of A 1 and saw that he was talking to the appellant and one other person, apart from the wife of accused No.
The appellant visited the house of the accused on 29.12.1998 at about 10 P.M. and asked him to accompany him to the house of A 1 who wanted to talk to him.
The appellant who was present there stated that he had a quarrel with the deceased and his body was lying in an unconscious state in the garden behind the house of A 1.
For the reasons which we have numbericed earlier the last three circumstances were discarded by the Trial Court, However, the Trial Court was satisfied that the appellant was present at the railway station where the incident took place on the earlier date and there was an altercation between the deceased and A 1.
3 to 5 A 3 to A 5 .
The appellant herein, namely, Deepak Chandrakant Patil, hereinafter referred to as A 2, was also present at the railway station.
So far as his appellants going to the school on the 29th December, Page 2583 1998 is companycerned, the school teacher PW 8, who was examined to prove this fact, was declared hostile since PW 8 stated in the companyrse of his deposition that the Appellant had companye to the school on 29th and inquired about another school trip which was being arranged.
He pointed out the place from where the dead body was recovered.
At about 12 midnight when they reached the house of A 1 they met a person who feigned ignorance about the whereabouts of the deceased.
The accused were identified by PWs 13 15 in the test identification parade.
The case of the prosecution is that an auto rickshaw with three persons sitting in it followed them.
This was objected to by the wife of the deceased P.W.15 saying that if A 1 wanted to talk to the deceased he should companye to his residence.
P. Singh, J. Page 2580 The appellant herein has appealed against the judgment and order dated July 13, 2004 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.
227 of 2000, companyvicting him of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
