Apeal-57-93
1
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.57 OF 1993
Sunil alias Pona Tolaram Pore (Varma),
R/a. Idgah Road, Premnagar,
Jogeshwari (East), Bombay - 400 060
[At present imprisoned at District
Central Prison, Thane] ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Ms. Indu Verma for the Appellant (Original Accused No.2).
Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE RD SEPTEMBER, 2011.
: 23
JUDGMENT :
1. The Appellant and three others were prosecuted on the allegations of
having committed offences punishable under Section 364 of the IPC and
Section 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, or, in the alternative,
Section 326 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. After holding a trial,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay found the
Appellant (the original Accused No.2) and the other accused guilty of an
offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC read with Section 34
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
2
Dixit
thereof. He sentenced the Appellant (original Accused No.2) and the
original Accused No.1 – Jamaluddin alias Shendya Sayyed Hussein – to
suffer R.I. for seven years. He directed the original Accused Nos.3 and 4 –
Anwar Khan alias Annu Rafiq Khan and Mohamed Ayub Mohamad Isaq
Shaikh – to be released on probation of good conduct on their executing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each, as contemplated under
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter ‘the Code’ for
brevity). The said original Accused No.1 Jamaluddin had filed a separate
Appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.716 of 1992, but he died during the
pendency of the said Appeal. That Appeal, therefore, stood abated.
2. Since the Advocate, who had been appearing for the Appellant in this
Appeal, sought discharge, it was duly given and Ms. Indu Verma, Advocate,
was appointed for the Appellant under the Free Legal Aid Scheme.
3. I have heard Ms. Indu Verma, the learned Advocate for the Appellant,
and Smt. V.R. Bhosale, the learned APP for the Respondent-State. I have
gone through the impugned Judgment and Order. I have been taken
through the evidence adduced before the trial Court.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
3
Dixit
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as put forth before the trial
Court, was as follows :-
. The Appellant and the other accused were known Gundas and known
as such, in the locality where the First Informant Nafajat Hasmat Pathan
(PW-1) lived with his wife Tajbibi (PW-2). The Appellant and even the other
accused were known to the said Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2) since
prior to the incident. That, on 11th April, 1988, the Appellant went to the
house of Nafajat at about 4:00 p.m., when Nafajat was not at home. The
Appellant enquired with Tajbibi (PW-2) about Nafajat (PW-1). Thereafter, in
the night, again, the Appellant and the original Accused No.1 Jamaluddin
went to the house of Nafajat (PW-1) and enquired about him, but at that
time also, Nafajat (PW-1) was not at home. That, at about 6:00 a.m. on the
next day, i.e. 12th April, 1988, while Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2) were
sleeping in their house, the Appellant and other Accused went there. On the
Appellant calling him by his name, Nafajat opened the door. Nafajat (PW-1)
and Tajbibi (PW-2) noticed the Appellant and the other accused standing in
front of the door of their house. The original Accused No.1 had a revolver in
his hand and the Appellant and the other accused were having choppers
with them. The original Accused No.1 placed the revolver on the back of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
4
Dixit
Nafajat (PW-1). The Appellant tied the hands of Nafajat by a rope. All the
four accused then dragged Nafajat to a nearby place i.e. near Munshi
Grocery Stores. The original Accused No.1 Jamaluddin – who was already
holding a revolver in one hand – took the chopper, which was in the hand of
the original Accused No.4, and assaulted Nafajat (PW-1) on his shoulders.
The Appellant and the other two accused joined the original Accused No.1
in the assault. All the accused – including the Appellant – assaulted Nafajat
(PW-1) with choppers all over his body. Nafajat (PW-1) started bleeding
from the injuries sustained by him on account of the said assault. He fell on
the ground. All the four accused then ran away. While he was being
assaulted, Nafajat (PW-1) had raised an alarm, but his mouth was gagged
by the Appellant. Tajbibi (PW-2) and one Hanif Shaikh came to the spot
where Nafajat (PW-1) was lying in an injured condition. Tajbibi (PW-2)
rushed to Jogeshwari Police Station and reported the incident to PSI Nikam
(PW-8). PSI Nikam (PW-8) and the other Police staff went to the spot along
with Tajbibi (PW-2). The Police removed Nafajat (PW-1) to Cooper Hospital.
Dr. Satish Dharap (PW-3) examined Nafajat (PW-1) and noticed 39 wounds
on his person. Nafajat (PW-1) was admitted in the Emergency Ward of the
Hospital. While Nafajat (PW-1) was being treated, PSI Nikam (PW-8)
recorded his statement; which was treated as the First Information Report
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
5
Dixit
(Exhibit-13). Thereafter, the statement of Tajbibi (PW-2) was recorded.
Nafajat (PW-1) was treated in the hospital till he was discharged on 28 th
May, 1988.
. After the registration of the crime, PI Puri (PW-9), PSI Avhad (PW-7),
PSI Save and other Police staff visited the spot of incident and drew a
Panchnama (Exhibit-18), with Subhash Baliram Mestry (PW-4), acting as
one of the Panchas. Samples of blood were collected from the spot. Inquiries
were made with certain persons and their statements were recorded. Then
the blood stained clothes of Nafajat (PW-1), i.e. Shirt (Article 1) and Lungi
(Article 2), were taken charge of under the Panchanama (Exhibit-32).
5. During the course of investigation, the original Accused No.1 disclosed
certain information pursuant to which the chopper (Article 5), which had
been allegedly used in commission of the offence, was recovered by the
Police under a Panchanama (Exhibits 36 and 36A) in the presence of Panch
Umashankar Prajapati (PW-6). The articles, which had been seized in the
course of investigation, including the clothes of Nafajat (PW-1), were sent to
the Chemical Analyzer for examination and opinion.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
6
Dixit
. On completion of investigation, a report under Section 173(2)(i) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted, on the basis of which the
Appellant and the other accused were prosecuted and convicted, as
aforesaid.
6. The prosecution examined ten witnesses during the trial. Originally,
the charge, that had been framed against the Appellant and the other
accused, was only with respect to the offences punishable under Sections
364 of the IPC and 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. After the
entire evidence was recorded, however, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge framed a charge in respect of an offence punishable under Section
326 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC as an alternative to the
charge of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC read with
Section 34 of the IPC.
7. The main witnesses in this case are Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi
(PW-2). I have carefully gone through the evidence of these witnesses. That,
all the accused persons, including the Appellant, were known to Nafajat
(PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2) since previously, is not in dispute at all. Nafajat
(PW-1) has identified all the accused including the Appellant in the Court.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
7
Dixit
He has narrated the incident. According to him, in the night between 11 th
April, 1988 and 12th April, 1988, he returned home at about 12:30 a.m. and
at that time Tajbibi (PW-2) told him that the Appellant had come to enquire
about him at about 4:00 p.m. and, thereafter, at about 11:00 p.m. He has
then stated that at about 6:00 a.m., he heard a knock at the door and also
heard the Appellant calling him by his name. He has further stated that
when he opened the door, he saw all the four accused standing in front of
his door and when he came out of his house, immediately, the original
Accused No.1 placed a revolver on his back. He has also stated about the
Appellant and the other accused having choppers in their hands. According
to him, Tajbibi (PW-2) came out and asked the accused persons as to what
was the matter when the original Accused No.1 told her that they all had
some work with Nafajat (PW-1), and that Nafajat (PW-1) would be coming
back soon. He then states that the Appellant tied both his hands by rope,
and that, then all the accused dragged him to a place near Munshi Grocery
Shop. According to him, the original Accused No.1 then asked him as to
where one Mohd. Shah was, when Nafajat (PW-1) stated that he did not
know his whereabouts. It is thereupon that the original Accused No.1 took
the chopper from the hands of the original Accused No.4 and assaulted
Nafajat (PW-1) with it on his shoulders. That, then all the accused joined
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
8
Dixit
him in assaulting Nafajat (PW-1) with choppers all over the body. Nafajat
(PW-1) has also stated about the Appellant gagging his mouth, when
Nafajat raised an alarm. That, Tajbibi (PW-2) and one Hanif Babu Shaikh
came to the spot where Nafajat (PW-1) had been lying in an injured
condition. He has then stated about Tajbibi (PW-1) going to the Police
Station, Police coming there and taking him to Cooper Hospital. He has also
stated about his statement being recorded by the Police in the hospital. The
F.I.R. (Exhibit-13) was read over to him in the Court and he stated that it
had been correctly recorded. He has also identified the Shirt (Article 1) and
Lungi (Article 2) as his, when they were shown to him in Court.
8. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was given to him that he was
staying with one person by name Habib, but this suggestion has been denied
by Nafajat (PW-1), as ‘not true’. It was also suggested to him that Tajbibi
(PW-2) was not his lawfully wedded wife, and that, prior to her marriage
with Nafajat (PW-1), Tajbibi (PW-2) was residing with Habib, and that, they
were in love. The attempt in the cross-examination is to suggest that Nafajat
(PW-1) had a quarrel with Habib, and that because Nafajat (PW-1) had
married Tajbibi (PW-2), Habib had threatened to kill him. All these
suggestions have been, however, denied by Nafajat (PW-1). A suggestion
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
9
Dixit
was also given to him that a person by name Jafar had also threatened to
kill Nafajat, and that Jafar and Tajbibi had plans to marry. Nafajat (PW-1)
denied such suggestion and stated that he did not even know any such
person. It was also suggested to him that he was a contract killer, and that
he was involved in several cases of extortion, theft and robbery at several
Police Stations in Mumbai. It was also suggested that Tajbibi (PW-2), her
brother and her parents were involved in several Narcotics cases. It was
suggested that Tajbibi’s family members were supplying Brown Sugar to
several persons in Jogeshwari area. All sorts of suggestions, that the
Appellant had arranged for an accommodation for Nafajat in Jogeshwari,
that Nafajat had borrowed monies from the original Accused No.1, etc.,
were given to Nafajat (PW-1); and all such suggestions have been denied by
him. It was ultimately suggested to him that Habib and Jafar had assaulted
him, and that he had not seen any of the accused assaulting him. It was
suggested that he and even Tajbibi (PW-2) had suppressed the name of
Habib and Jafar and both of them had falsely implicated the accused
persons.
9. In the cross-examination, Nafajat (PW-1) was further questioned as to
how he knew all the four accused, to which he had replied that they were
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
10
Dixit
residents of the same locality as his, and that he used to see them often in
the locality itself. It was also suggested that Tajbibi (PW-2) had not
informed him that original Accused Nos.1 and 2 had come to enquire about
him at his house on 11th April, 1988, and that the Appellant/original
Accused No.2 did not knock at his door at 6:00 a.m. etc. These suggestions
have been denied by Nafajat (PW-1).
10.
Nafajat (PW-1) was sought to be contradicted with reference to the
F.I.R., as regards whether he had told the Police that, when all the four
accused had come to his house, his wife had came out and asked all the
accused as to what was the matter, by pointing out the omission to
specifically state so in the F.I.R. I am not impressed by this attempt. The
story of Nafajat (PW-1) as well as of Tajbibi (PW-2) is that Tajbibi (PW-2)
was present in the house when Nafajat (PW-1) was taken away from his
house by the accused persons and nothing turns on whether Tajbibi (PW-2)
had asked all the accused as to what was the matter and further whether
that Nafajat (PW-1) had stated before the Police that she had so asked.
Thus, even if it is assumed that it was not stated to the Police by Nafajat
(PW-1), it cannot lead to the inference that Tajbibi (PW-2) had actually not
witnessed the knock at the door and taking away of Nafajat (PW-1); and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
11
Dixit
that what has been stated before the Court by Nafajat (PW-1) is, therefore,
an improvement.
11. In her evidence, Tajbibi (PW-2) has narrated the facts in conformity
with the deposition of Nafajat (PW-1). She has stated that she knew all the
four accused since prior to the date of incident. She has identified all of
them in Court by pointing out towards them and by giving their names.
12. Tajbibi (PW-2) has narrated the incident by stating that on 12th April,
1988, at about 6:00 a.m., the Appellant knocked at the door and called
Nafajat (PW-1) by his name. That, when Nafajat (PW-1) opened the door,
Tajbibi (PW-2) was also awake and the child had also woken up. Tajbibi
(PW-2) has stated that the Appellant asked Nafajat (PW-1) to come out of
the house. That, she came out of the house and saw all the four accused,
including the Appellant, standing outside the door. She has also stated
about the original Accused No.1 having the revolver in his hand and the
other accused being armed with choppers. That, she asked all the four
accused as to what was the matter, and that thereupon all the accused told
her that they had some work with Nafajat (PW-1) and were taking him
along. Tajbibi (PW-2) went inside her house, but after the accused had
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
12
Dixit
taken away Nafajat (PW-1), she went out of her house along with the child
to look for him. She has stated that she then saw him in an injured
condition near Munshi Grocery Shop, which was situated at a distance of
about 5 to 10 minutes from her house. She has stated that her husband –
Nafajat (PW-1) – was bleeding profusely from the severe injuries, which he
had sustained. According to her, while on the way, she was accosted by the
original Accused No.1 and the Appellant, who threatened her that they
would kill her, if she would proceed further. She has then stated about going
to Jogeshwari Police Station and reporting the matter to the Police, and that
Nafajat (PW-1) was, thereafter, taken in a police van to the Cooper Hospital.
13. In the cross-examination, an attempt was made to suggest that in
front of the entrance door of her house, four persons would not be able to
stand simultaneously, and that, therefore, she could not have seen all the
four accused. This has been denied by the witness. A suggestion was given
that she and her husband were on friendly terms with the accused persons,
which was also denied by her.
14. Tajbibi (PW-2) was questioned as to when she went out to see what
had happened to Nafajat (PW-1), whether she had taken her child with her.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
13
Dixit
Tajbibi (PW-2) had, initially, stated that she left the child with one of the
neighbours and went alone to look for Nafajat (PW-1), but has later on
stated that she did not remember exactly whether she had taken the child
along with her to the spot where Nafajat (PW-1) was lying in an injured
condition.
15. Tajbibi (PW-2) claims to have seen that the hands of Nafajat (PW-1)
were tied behind the back by a rope. She was also asked about one Habib
Talwar and she has stated that she did not know any such person. In the
cross-examination, she was confronted with the fact that, that the Accused
No.1 was having a revolver was not appearing in her statement recorded by
the Police and she was unable to state why it was not recorded though she
claimed to have told the same to the Police. Similarly, the omission to state
to the Police about the original Accused No.1 and the Appellant threatening
her when she was proceeding to see where Nafajat (PW-1) was, has also
been brought on record. Though Tajbibi (PW-2) was extensively cross-
examined, I do not find that her testimony has been shaken in any manner.
Several wild suggestions – as were given to Nafajat (PW-1) – were given to
Tajbibi (PW-2) also, such as Nafajat (PW-1) was concerned in a murder case,
that he had been attested in a robbery case, and that Tajbibi’s brother was
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
14
Dixit
involved in a rape case, and that he was dealing in brown sugar, etc. It was
also suggested to her that one Hanif Khadfa had taken possession of her
house and had assaulted her, and that, at that time, she had gone to the
original Accused No.1 for help. These suggestions have been denied by
Tajbibi (PW-2) as false.
16. The evidence of Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2) is corroborated by
the evidence of Dr. Satish Dharap (PW-3), who had examined Nafajat
(PW-1) in the Cooper Hospital. Dr. Satish Dharap (PW-3) has mentioned
that there were 39 wounds on the person of Nafajat (PW-1), out of which
37 were incise wounds. Out of these wounds, two wounds were on the
scalp. He has identified the endorsement on the F.I.R., which he said was in
his own handwriting. He had brought the case papers in respect of the
treatment given to Nafajat (PW-1) in the Cooper Hospital.
17. His cross-examination has been quite lengthy, but nothing, which
would shake his evidence given in the examination-in-chief, has been
brought on record. Part of the cross-examination was directed towards
establishing that the injuries caused to Nafajat (PW-1) were not that serious.
Part of the cross-examination was directed towards suggesting that the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
15
Dixit
injuries sustained by him could not have been caused by the choppers. Dr.
Satish Dharap (PW-3) has admitted that two of the injuries could not be
caused by sharp weapon, and that they would be caused, if one would fall
on the ground and, if dashed against any hard or blunt surface. He has
categorically stated that considering the loss of blood from the injuries
caused to Nafajat (PW-1), the 38 injuries were enough to cause death in all
probability. He has, however, admitted that no major blood vessel was
actively bleeding except for the injury mentioned at Sr. No.13 in the Medical
Certificate (Exhibit 19) issued by him. The purpose of some of the questions
put to this witness in the cross-examination was, apparently, to show that
the injuries were quite minor. In my opinion, this has not been successful
and the evidence of this witness is not shaken in any manner.
18. I find that though Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2) were extensively
cross-examined, and that all sorts of suggestions – quite contradictory at
times – were given to both of them, their testimony, which is supported by
the medical evidence and the evidence of the Police Officers on certain
aspects, is not shaken at all. In fact, some of the suggestions in the cross-
examination are quite curious, in as much as, it is suggested that Nafajat
(PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2) were not disclosing the names of the real
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
16
Dixit
assailants and they were falsely implicating the accused persons without
suggesting any reason for protecting the real culprits and for implicating the
accused persons falsely. It would not be possible to accept that after having
suffered such a murderous assault, the victim would not name the real
assailants, but implicate some totally different persons as the assailants.
Interestingly, it was also suggested to Tajbibi (PW-2) that actually she and
Nafajat (PW-1) had been helped by the original Accused No.1; in which case
it would be difficult to conceive a reason for the false implication of the
original Accused No.1 and the other accused including the Appellant.
19. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, has believed
the evidence of Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2). He has found their
versions consistent and natural. The minor variations in the evidence of
these witnesses and the possibility of their having made some improvement
on some minor matters have been rightly ignored by the trial Court as not of
any consequence.
20. The evidence of PSI Vithal Nikam (PW-8) attached to the Jogeshwari
Police Station at the material time, shows that while he was on station
house duty from 8 p.m. on 11th April, 1988 to 8 a.m. on 12th April, 1988, at
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
17
Dixit
about 7:30 a.m., Tajbibi (PW-2) came running to the Police Station and
reported that her husband was assaulted and was lying on the road in an
injured condition. PSI Nikam (PW-8) thereafter immediately went to the
spot along with Tajbibi (PW-2) and police staff. He has stated that they went
near Munshi Grocery Shop where Nafajat (PW-1) was lying in an injured
condition. He has then stated that Nafajat (PW-1) was lifted and put in the
Police Jeep and then taken to Cooper Hospital, where he was admitted in
emergency ward. According to him, he then recorded the statement of
Nafajat (PW-1) after obtaining permission from the Doctor attending to
Nafajat (PW-1). The F.I.R. (Exhibit-13) was shown to him and he has
identified the same as the said statement of Nafajat (PW-1) which was
recorded by him in the Cooper Hospital.
21. PSI Nikam (PW-8) has then stated that he along with Tajbibi (PW-2),
PI Puri (PW-9), PSI Avhad, PSI Save and other Policemen went to the scene
of offence and, that, under a Panchnama, the measurements of the room of
Nafajat (PW-1) were taken. The surroundings were also noted and then the
Police Party and the Panchas went to the scene of offence, which was
situated at a distance of about 1 furlong from the house of Nafajat (PW-1).
He has then stated about collecting samples of blood, mud stain with blood
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
18
Dixit
etc. from the place of incident. He was extensively cross-examined on
various aspects of the matter, but I do not find anything that would assist
the Appellant has been brought out on record as a result of the cross-
examination. He has admitted that Tajbibi’s name has not been mentioned
in the entry made in the Station House Diary (as the person coming to the
Police Station), but, in my opinion, this cannot be lead to any doubt as to
whether Tajbibi (PW-2) had, indeed, gone to the Police Station. PSI Nikam
(PW-8) has given a reason for not mentioning this in the Station House
Diary and, according to him, as Nafajat (PW-1) was lying in a seriously
injured condition, he left the Police Station immediately and, that,
therefore, he did not make any entry in that regard in the Station House
Diary. He was then questioned as to whether he mentioned in the Station
Diary Entry that he left the Police Station for going to the hospital etc. and
the witness has stated that it was not so mentioned. I am unable to accept
that this would throw a doubt on the version of Tajbibi (PW-2) and of this
witness about Tajbibi (PW-2) having gone to the Police Station and this
witness, along with other Police personnel having gone to the place where
Nafajat (PW-1) was lying in an injured condition. The omission of Nafajat
(PW-1) to state before the Police that when the accused persons had
knocked the door of his house at around 6:00 a.m., Tajbibi (PW-2) had also
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
19
Dixit
woken up and had come up to the door, was brought on record by
confronting PSI Nikam (PW-8) with the same. I am of the opinion that such
omission is inconsequential and cannot lead to an inference that in spite of
the door of the house being knocked and in spite of the room being a small
one, Tajbibi (PW-2) did not wake up and did not see as to who had knocked
the door or who had come there. It is unlikely that when the door was
knocked at such early hours and when Nafajat (PW-1) had woken up,
Tajbibi (PW-2) would continue to sleep and would not try to know who had
come.
22. The case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved merely because this
witness did not make any record of what Tajbibi (PW-2) told him after
coming to the Police Station. Tajbibi (PW-2) as well as the witness, at that
stage, were concerned more with the condition of the injured Nafajat
(PW-1) and the explanation of the witness that he noticed that Tajbibi
(PW-2) was very much frightened, and that she did not tell him as to who
and how many were the assailants, he did not ask her the same, is quite
acceptable.
23. In his evidence, the Investigating Officer PI Shankar Puri (PW-9)
speaks about the arrest of the Appellant on 15th April, 1988. According to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
20
Dixit
him, the Appellant was arrested on 15th April, 1988 by one PSI Sankhe in
C.R. No.119 of 1988 of Jogeshwari Police Station and, later, he was arrested
in this case. He has spoken about having taken charge of the clothes of the
person of the Appellant in the presence of Panchas. His evidence which
relates to the other accused is not necessary to be discussed here and it is
sufficient to observe that the cross-examination as of this witness had not
yielded anything in favour of the present Appellant.
24. The evidence of other witnesses is not significant and, as a matter of
fact, not relevant in the context of the case against the Appellant. Therefore,
only a brief reference to the same would suffice. Subhash Mestry (PW-4) is
the Panch in respect of the Spot Panchnamas. Mohd. Jamil Khan (PW-5) is
supposed to be a Panch in respect of arrest of the Appellant on 15th April,
1988. He has, however, not supported the prosecution and was declared
hostile. Uma Shankar Prajapati (PW-6) is also a Panch Witness in respect of
the recovery of a Chopper at the instance of the original Accused No.1. This
witness did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared
hostile. In any case, his evidence was not relevant in the context of the
question of guilt or innocence of the present Appellant. Similarly, the
evidence of Bhanudas Avahad (PW-7), Police Sub-Inspector attached to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
21
Dixit
Jogeshwari Police Station, at the material time, also is in respect of the
involvement of the original Accused No.4 and does not relate to the present
Appellant. The evidence of Narayan Patil (PW-10), who was attached to the
Jogeshwari Police Station as Inspector of Police at the material time, is also
not relevant in the context of the case against the Appellant.
25. The trial Court has believed the version of Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi
(PW-2), which has been corroborated by the medical evidence and also by
the evidence of PSI Nikam (PW-8). On an independent re-appreciation and
re-evaluation of the evidence, this Court also comes to the conclusion that
the assault on Nafajat (PW-1) by the accused persons was clearly proved,
and that the role of the Appellant, as alleged by the prosecution, had also
been satisfactorily proved.
26. Ms. Indu Verma, the learned Advocate for the Appellant, advanced
some arguments with respect to the unreliability of the prosecution version.
According to her, the theory of the hands of the Nafajat (PW-1) having been
tied by a rope cannot be believed, and that the witnesses are not telling the
truth in that regard. She pointed out that no rope had been seized during
the investigation. She also pointed out that though the allegation of the
original Accused No.1 having a revolver with him has been levelled, no
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
22
Dixit
revolver has been seized. According to her, therefore, the witnesses cannot
be termed as wholly reliable. There is undoubtedly some substance in the
contentions advanced by the learned Advocate for the Appellant and though
it is possible to find out some faults in the investigation, it is not possible to
accept that no assault, as alleged, had taken place at the time and place
mentioned by Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2). The number of injuries
sustained by Nafajat (PW-1) are wholly consistent with the version of
Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2). The place where the incident took place
also cannot be disputed. Once it is established beyond any reasonable doubt
that Nafajat (PW-1) was assaulted at the given time and place, the only
possibility required to be considered for exonerating the Appellant, would
be that the Appellant was not among the assailants. In that case, the
possibility of Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2) having falsely implicated
the Appellant needs to be considered. I have considered the same and, in
my opinion, such possibility has to be forthwith rejected. It is significant that
no reason has been suggested for Nafajat (PW-1) to implicate the Appellant
falsely. On the contrary, the wild, somewhat reckless and at times
contradictory suggestions, that had been given to Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi
(PW-2) in the cross-examination, themselves indicate that there was hardly
any scope for challenging the evidence of these witnesses.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
23
Dixit
27. That no rope was taken charge of in the course of investigation and no
revolver could be seized in the course of investigation, though may indicate
that Nafajat (PW-1) and Tajbibi (PW-2) are not wholly reliable witnesses,
their evidence cannot be discarded only on that ground, with respect to the
incident of assault and the involvement of the Appellant in the assault.
There is a circumstantial guarantee with respect to the version of these
witnesses, apart from the fact that the same is fully corroborated by the
evidence of Dr. Satish Dharap (PW-3) and PSI Nikam (PW-8), which
evidence has remained unshaken.
28. In my opinion, therefore, the finding of guilt of the accused persons –
including the Appellant – as arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge is proper and legal. As a matter of fact, the reasoning of the learned
Sessions Judge that this assault was not sufficient to conclude the offence to
be one punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is quite doubtful. This view
has been taken only on the basis that there had been no injuries on the vital
part of the body of Nafajat (PW-1), which, in my opinion, could not have
been the sole criteria to consider what offence the Appellant and the other
accused had committed. The number of injuries and the medical opinion
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
24
Dixit
that they were – at least collectively – sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death needed to be considered in this context. Anyway,
since the State has not preferred any Appeal from the conviction of the
Appellant with respect to a lesser offence, I do not wish to discuss this
aspect any further and leave it at that.
29. Thus, there appears to be no infirmity in the judgment and order of
conviction of the Appellant, as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Greater Bombay.
30. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, urged that
considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, it would be proper to
reduce the sentence imposed on the Appellant.
31. Before considering this aspect of the matter, it would not be out of
place to mention an error committed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, though the same is not relevant in the context of the present Appeal;
as a reference to the same would clarify the legal position with respect to
the applicability of Section 360 of the Code to the State of Maharashtra.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
25
Dixit
32. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dealt with the original Accused
Nos.3 and 4, under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code. They were
convicted of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC, which
offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. A reading of Section
360(1) shows that it is not applicable where the conviction is in respect of
an offence ‘punishable with death or imprisonment for life’. It has been held
that the phrase ‘punishable with death or imprisonment for life’ must be
interpreted disjunctively. The said phrase must be read as referring to
offences where the punishment would be death, or where the punishment
would be imprisonment for life. Thus, even where imprisonment for life is
the maximum punishment provided for the offence, of which the accused is
convicted, the benefit of Section 360 cannot be extended to such accused.
There was, therefore, no scope for extending the benefit of the provisions of
Section 360 to the original Accused Nos.3 and 4, as was done by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
33. Even otherwise, whether, on facts, it was a fit case to release the
offenders on probation of good conduct, regard being had to the factors
mentioned in the said Section, does not appear to have been considered at
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
26
Dixit
all by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. What was considered as a
ground for extending the benefit of probation is that the said accused were in
custody for more than two years and more than four years, respectively. This
was not a relevant consideration at all, for extending the benefit of
probation to them.
34. Moreover, there was a basic error in applying the provisions of Section
360 of the Code, as the said section has no application to the State of
Maharashtra. It is because the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is in force
in the State of Maharashtra. It has been brought in force in different parts of
the State of Maharashtra on different dates. In some Districts, it was
brought in force on 1st November, 1966; in some other Districts, it was
brought in force on 1st February, 1970. By 15
th
August, 1972, it was brought
in force throughout the State of Maharashtra. Section 19 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, reads as follows :
“Section 19. Section 562 of the Code not to apply
in certain areas.- Subject to the provisions of Section
18, Section 562 of the Code shall cease to apply to the
States or parts thereof in which this act is brought into
force.”
35. Undoubtedly, this Section refers to Section 562 of the Old Code i.e.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
27
Dixit
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The new Code came in force on the
1st day of April, 1974, but Section 19 of the Probation of Offenders Act was
not amended in consequence of the same. However, this aspect does not
affect the efficacy or operation of Section 19(1) in any manner. The reason
is that the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 have substantially been incorporated in Section 360 of the new Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In other words, the provisions of both the
sections are in pari materia. In view of the provisions of Section 8(1) of the
General Clauses Act, the reference in Section 19 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, to Section 562 of the old Code, has to be construed as a
reference to Section 360 of the new Code. The result is that in the States
where the Probation of Offenders Act has been brought in force, Section 360
of the Code of Criminal Procedure can have no application. The same view
has been taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs.
Chellappan George, reported in 1983 CR.L.J. 1780. The Karnataka High
Court also, in the case of B.S.M. Ganganna Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.,
reported in 1987 CRI.L.J. 561, has taken the same view by observing that
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being in force in Karnataka, the
provisions contained in Section 360 of the new Code are not applicable in
that State. Again, a Full Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court has also
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:01 :::
Apeal-57-93
28
Dixit
taken the same view in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lat
Singh & Ors., reported in 1990 CRI.L.J. 723.
36. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in applying
the provisions of Section 360 of the Code to the original Accused Nos.3 and
4. Even otherwise, it does not appear to be a case where the benefit of the
provisions of probation, even as per the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, could have been given.
37. Since the Respondent-State has not challenged the release of the
original Accused Nos.3 and 4 by adopting appropriate proceedings before
this Court, no further action in the matter is warranted, at this distance of
time. However, it was thought fit to make the above observation as to the
correct legal position, as instances were noticed wherein the Courts in
Maharashtra had invoked the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, instead of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders
Act, for releasing an accused on probation of good conduct. It is, therefore,
felt that the correct legal position with respect to the applicability of Section
360 of the Code needs to be brought to the notice of the Subordinate Courts
in Maharashtra.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:02 :::
Apeal-57-93
29
Dixit
38. I shall now come back to the question as to whether it would be just
and proper to reduce the sentence imposed upon the Appellant by the trial
Court. I have taken into consideration the submissions made in this regard
by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The incident had taken place on
12th April, 1988 i.e. more than 23 years back. The Appellant had been on
bail during the trial and even during the pendency of the Appeal. He came
to be taken in custody only a few months back. The submission of the
learned Counsel that no specific role in the incident has been attributed to
the Appellant as the author of the any particular injury or injuries suffered
by the victim has also to be accepted. Further, during the period of about 23
years, while the Appellant was on bail, he does not seem to have committed
any offence. At, least there is nothing to indicate so and not even a claim to
that effect.
39. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and, more
particularly, that the Appellant shall suffer punishment for something which
had been done by him about 23 years back, I am inclined to reduce the
sentence imposed on the Appellant by the trial Court.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:02 :::
Apeal-57-93
30
Dixit
40. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed.
41. The order of conviction of the Appellant, as recorded by the
Additional Sessions Judge, is maintained. However, the sentence imposed
upon the Appellant is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years.
42. Save and except the aforesaid, no other order in this Appeal, which
stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
[A.M. THIPSAY, J.]
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:46:02 :::
