The evidence of the present matter shows that accused No. 1 was living in the room with the deceased where the murder took place. Accused No. 1 is an agriculturist. The evidence on the record does not show that accused has any relative at Alandi and there was any reason for him for going to Alandi and staying there for such a long time, for about six days. In ordinary course, a male member of family where there is only one adult male member does not leave station for days together. The male member stays at home in the night time and he leaves home in the day time for work. Though the Trial Court has held that explanation is given by accused No. 1 that he was out of station one day prior to the date of incident, the statement given by accused No. 1 under section 313 of Cr.P.C. shows that accused No. 1 contended that he had left home three days prior to the date of incident. In the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused No. 1 has further contended that he returned to his village Warud Kazi on 4.12.2004 and he had learnt first time on 3.12.2004 about the incident. Thus, he admits that he was able to keep contact with his family if he was at Alandi and he admits that he was not at station up to 4.12.2004. In view of provision of section 114 of Evidence Act, it was necessary for accused No. 1 to give particulars as to where he was living in Alandi for the period given by him, for about six days. He could have examined witnesses and he could have produced some record if such record was created to create a probability that on the night between 1.12.2004 and 2.12.2004 he was not at Warud Kazi. That is not done by accused No. 1. {Para 19}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2006
Decided On: 18.01.2018
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramnath
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
T.V. Nalawade and Sunil K. Kotwal, JJ.
Author: T.V. Nalawade, J.
Citation: MANU/MH/0078/2018,2018 ALL MR (CRI) 3825.
Print Page