1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2002
Shivaji @Shiva Shrimant Sonawane )
Hindu, adult, age 21 years, r/o Dnyandeo Jadhav Chawl, )
near Rationing shop, Milind Nagar, Kalyan (W), )
Dist. Thane (At present detained in Kolhapur Prison )...Appellant
vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the appellant.
Mr.D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
ig CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR &
R.G. KETKAR, JJ.
Judgment reserved on: 19th January, 2010
Judgment pronounced on: 17 February, 2010
th
JUDGMENT : (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.)
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur,
dated 16th October, 2002 in Sessions Case No. 440 of 2001. The learned Judge
has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”) for committing murder of one
Laxman Chintu Dhanva and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The
appellant was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
2
under Section 452 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and also awarded fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in
default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences
were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The aforesaid order of conviction is challenged by the appellant-
original accused No.1 by way of this appeal.
3. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant as well as
against original accused No.2-Amit Dattatraya Patil, at Exh. 2. As per the
charge, on 24th October, 2000, at about 20.45 hrs., in the house of the
complaint, Smt. Latika Laxman Dhanva, at Laxmi Bhoir chawl, Room No.5,
Milind Nagar, Kalyan (West), within the jurisdiction of Mahatma Phule
Chowk Police Station, Kalyan, in furtherance of their common intention the
accused entered the house of the complainant and unlawfully restrained the
complainant and put the complainant into fear of assault and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of
the IPC. Secondly, the above named accused, during the course of same
transaction and in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder
by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the husband of the
complainant viz. Laxman Chintu Dhanva by assaulting him by means of gupti
on the vital parts of his body and thereby committed an offence punishable
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
3
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused did not plead
guilty to the charge framed.
4. The prosecution case is that Complainant Latika Dhanva resides at
Laxman Bhoir Chawl in Milind Nagar area at Kalyan (West). The victim
Laxman was the husband of the said complainant. The daughters of the
complainant viz. Alka and Anita and her sons Arvind and Manoj were
residing jointly. Deceased Laxman was serving as a Gardner-Mukadam in the
office of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation at Kalyan. At the time
of the occurrence, the complainant’s elder daughter Alka, aged about 15
years, was taking education in VIIIth standard in Nutan Vidhyalaya High
School at Kalyan. Accused No.1 Shivaji (present appellant) was residing in
the chawl which is situate by the side of the chawl in which Complainant
Latika was residing. Occasionally, accused Shivaji used to visit the
Complainant’s home. After observing the conduct of said Shivaji, Latika
warned him not to arrive at her residence on the ground that she is having
young daughters. It is also the case of prosecution that about four to five
months prior to the incident, deceased Laxman had seen accused Shivaji
talking with Alka on the road. At that time Laxman slapped on Shivaji’s face
and told him not to meet his daughter again and not to speak to his daughter.
The said Laxman learnt that accused Shivaji was clandestinely meeting his
daughter Alka and hence on two-three occasions altercation has taken place
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
4
between accused Shivaji and deceased Laxman. Laxman had warned accused
Shivaji not to speak to his daughter and, therefore, Shivaji became furious and
was angry with Laxman in view of the same.
5. On 24th October, 2000, at 5.00 p.m. Laxman returned home from
his duty. After taking tea, he went to the market for fetching vegetables. At
about 8.30 p.m. Laxman, his wife Latika and Alka and Anita were watching
T.V. at their home. About 8.30 to 8.40 p.m, accused Shivaji and original
accused No.2-Amit Patil suddenly entered the complainant’s room. Accused
Shivaji abused Laxman in an indecent language and also asked Laxman as to
why he is not allowing him to meet his daughter Alka. Accused rushed
towards Laxman to assault him. Latika and Alka went to rescue Laxman but
accused Shivaji and Amit pushed aside Latika and Alka. Thereupon, accused
Shivaji took out a gupti from his waist and stabbed Laxman on the left side of
his stomach. Latika and her daughter tried to apprehend the accused Shivaji
and at that time accused No.2 obstructed Latika and Alka from rescuing
Laxman. Simultaneously, accused Shivaji again stabbed Laxman on the left
side of his stomach with gupti. Laxman received serious injuries and
collapsed on the floor. Latika and her daughter shouted loudly for help. The
accused thereafter ran way and disappeared in the darkness. Thereafter the
complainant and her neighbours took the victim Laxman to a hospital in a
rickshaw. The victim was admitted at Rukminibai Hospital at Kalyan. The
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
5
Medical Officer Dr. Dondiram Gokhale examined the victim Laxman and
pronounced him dead. The wife of the victim Latika filed a complaint on 24th
October, 2000 at about 20.45 Hrs. at Mahatma Phule Police Station against
both the accused. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a crime bearing
No. I-326/2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 452 read
with 34 IPC was registered against the accused. The police after completing
the investigation submitted a charge-sheet and, as pointed out earlier, charge
was framed against the appellant and other accused viz. Amit Patil. Since they
did not plead guilty, the trial commenced against both the accused. On behalf
of the prosecution 15 witnesses were examined.
6. The learned trial Judge held that both the accused entered into
the room of the complainant on the relevant day and from the evidence of
eye witnesses, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1-Shivaji
entered the house with gupti and stabbed the victim. The learned Judge found
that as per the evidence on record, the ingredients of Section 452 as well as
34 of the IPC are proved and accordingly convicted the appellant and
accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with 34 of
the IPC. However, the learned Judge acquitted original accused No.2 Amit
Patil for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. .
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
6
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The learned counsel further submitted that the presence of PW1,
PW2, PW3 and PW8 at the spot at the relevant time was doubtful and the
same is not established in evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that
the prosecution has come with two conflicting and contradictory versions
about the incident. It is submitted that out of two versions, only one version
can be said to be true. It is further submitted that the prosecution version is
supported by the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW8. According to these
witnesses, they have stated that they had seen the incident and they witnessed
the incident. It is, however, submitted that the other two independent
witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PW 12 and PW 14 have deposed
in their evidence that when they reached the spot, the deceased was in an
injured condition but alive and was resting his back to the wall demanding
water and that they gave water to him, put a towel on the wound to restrict
the flow of blood and took him to the hospital. They have stated that during
the aforesaid time, the deceased was alone at home and no family member of
the deceased was present in the house. It is submitted that the aforesaid piece
of evidence has been corroborated by other evidence led by the prosecution,
such as the presence of the towel, presence of blood on the towel, etc. It is
submitted that on the other hand the evidence of the family members, i.e.
PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW8 is not believable as they are interested witnesses
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
7
and their evidence is otherwise not free from doubt. It is submitted that when
there are conflicting versions and when it is not possible to accept both the
versions that the one which is in favour of the accused should be accepted
especially when the witnesses have not been declared hostile by the
prosecution and in such eventuality, the evidence of such witness is binding
on the prosecution. It is also submitted that PW 12 and PW 14 are
independent witnesses and their evidence is required to be preferred as
against the evidence of family members. It is submitted that it is not possible
to believe that the accused after entering the house of the victim would stab
him without any prelude or without any exchange of words. Learned counsel
further submitted that the article of clothing found on the person of the
deceased by the hospital and subsequently handed over to the police under
panchanama at Exh. 11 is a towel which was found by the Chemical Analyser
to have innumerable blood stains. It is submitted that neither the presence of
the towel among the articles found at the hospital nor the presence of blood
stains on the towel has been explained by any of the family members in
their evidence. As against that, independent witnesses i.e. PW 12 and PW 14
have stated that when they entered the house of the deceased, they saw the
deceased in a wounded condition, they tied the towel to his wounds to stop
the blood and took him in a rickshaw to the hospital. It is submitted that this
explains the presence of the towel among the articles which were found at
the hospital and also the presence of blood stains on the towel bearing the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
8
blood group of the deceased. It is submitted that if the family members of
the deceased had taken the deceased to the hospital, they would have been
able to explain the presence of towel. Learned counsel further submitted that
even though the family members have deposed that PW 1 took the deceased
to the hospital along with one neighbour, no particulars of such neighbour is
given as to who accompanied PW 1 at the time when the victim was taken to
the hospital. It is also submitted that though PW 1 claims that she took the
deceased to the hospital, her clothes which may have stained with blood have
not been seized. It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the
deceased had suffered two stab injuries and in that case there is bound to be
a lot of blood split at the spot. Yet, only a solitary spot of blood that was dry
and faded was found in the house of the victim and that blood has not been
shown to belong to the deceased. It is submitted that absence of blood on the
spot strongly suggests that the incident did not occur in the house as alleged
by the family members. It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution,
the incident occurred after the deceased had returned from work and the
family members alleged to have been present at that time in the house.
However, they have given different versions about the return of the deceased
from his work. It is also submitted that none of the family members has been
asked to identify the clothes of the accused. It is submitted that the clothes of
the deceased were shown only to PW 8, who was barely about 10 years old at
the time of the incident and his presence at the spot has not been mentioned
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
9
by PW 1, PW2 or PW3. It is submitted that there are omissions and
improvements in the say of the witnesses i.e. PW1, PW3 and PW8. It is also
submitted that as per the say of PW1, PW3 and PW 8, the accused locked the
door from inside which fact has not been mentioned to the police. It is also
submitted that the said witness have also not stated before the police that the
co-accused caught hold of the deceased and restrained him while he was
stabbed by the accused No.1 and the said version is given for the first time
before the Court. It is submitted that it is also not possible that the accused
who was having intimacy with the girl would enter her house with the sole
object of murdering her father. It is submitted that the recovery made on the
basis of the disclosure statement of the accused by which gupti is recovered
from the grass outside the public toilet can never be said to be reasonable at
all as it is nothing but a farce. It is submitted that the I.O. has admitted in his
evidence that in none of the remand applications preferred while the accused
was in police custody, he has mentioned about the recovery of the clothes and
this would show that there was no such recovery made on 27th October, 2000
as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the alleged discovery made
on 27th October, 2000 and 30th October, 2000 vide Exhibit 23, 24 , 27 and 28
were a farce and carried out to fabricate the evidence. It is submitted that the
alleged recovery of the clothes at the instance of the accused has not been
shown to any of the eye witnesses. It is also submitted that the confessional
statement relied upon by the prosecution is contradictory in nature. It is
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
10
submitted that as per the confessional statement recorded at Exh. 44, the
accused confessed that the deceased was killed with a kitchen knife. However,
as per Exh. 23, the accused confessed that he killed the deceased with a gupti.
It is submitted that gupti and knife both are different type of weapons. It is
submitted that the so-called confessional statements are not consistent. It is
submitted that gupti was recovered from the grass in the area adjoining to the
public toilet and it is impossible that a gupti which is 12 inches long could
remain undetected for five days at such a public place. It is submitted that
when a public place is accessible to all, the recovery of an article from such a
public place is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The
learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, according to the
prosecution, the accused’s clothes were recovered from a show case kept in his
house but it is not possible to believe that after committing the murder, the
accused would try and conceal his blood stained clothes by keeping them in
the show case. Learned counsel further submitted that the panchas selected
by the police are not the persons who can be said to be independent panchas
as they are all connected to the police or the deceased as PW 5 and PW 6
were the colleagues of the deceased and they had visited the hospital and also
attended his funeral. It is submitted that PW 4 used to go to the police
regularly. It is submitted that the disclosure statement is required to be
discarded as there is nothing to connect the accused to the recovery. The
learned counsel further submitted that the panchanama prepared is also
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
11
highly doubtful as there are gaps which have been left in the panchanama for
the insertion of the dates, timings, etc. The learned counsel further submitted
that the alleged motive attributed is an incident which had occurred about
four months prior to the incident as the deceased had slapped the accused and
warned him not to meet his daughter again. It is submitted that the motive
attributed is, therefore, too stale and insufficient to constitute a motive to
murder a person four months later. It is submitted that if really accused
wanted to commit an offence because of the alleged incident, there was no
reason for him to wait for four months. In the alternative, it is submitted that
even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its
case that it was the accused who had killed the deceased, even in that
eventuality it can be said that the accused has committed an offence
punishable under Section 304 Part-I or II or Section 326 of the IPC. It is
submitted that the doctor has not deposed that the injuries were sufficient to
cause death and in the absence of such a finding, the ingredients of Section
302 IPC are not satisfied and in that view of the matter, conviction under
Section 302 IPC is not sustainable and the case would fall under Section 326
IPC or 304 Part-II. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned
counsel has relied upon the evidence of the doctor by which the doctor has
stated that the deceased might have survived if prompt medical treatment
was given. It is also submitted that the disclosure statement of accused,
which is relied upon by the prosecution, shows that the accused did not carry
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
12
the weapon with him when he went to the house of the deceased. It is
submitted that in any case the incident occurred at the spur of the moment
owing to the exchange of words between the victim and the accused.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record his
written submissions. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
considering the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is required to be allowed by
setting aside the order of conviction or in the alternative the conviction is
required to be altered to Section 304 Part II or Section 326 of the IPC.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecution, on the other hand,
submitted that the prosecution has proved its case that it is the accused who
committed the alleged offence and the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. It is submitted that the
conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge is based on the evidence of
PW1, PW2 and PW 3 who had witnessed the incident in question and their
presence in the house is natural as the accused came at the victim’s house at
the late evening and at that time naturally the presence of the said witnesses
in the house is natural. It is submitted that the said witnesses have given
correct description of the incident in question. The learned APP has further
submitted that the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW
8 is consistent with other evidence on record and is not at variance. It is
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
13
submitted that the weapon in question i.e. gupti was not visible but it was
hidden and, therefore, recovery was absolutely proper as it took about five
days to find out the said weapon from the place in question. It is submitted
that the prosecution has clearly established the motive. It is further submitted
that simply because the witnesses are related to the victim, it cannot be said
that their evidence cannot be believed or required to be discarded. The
learned APP further submitted that the injury in question is proved by medical
evidence and the accused inflicted two fatal blows on the stomach of the
deceased which resulted into the death of deceased and, therefore, this case
squarely falls under Section 302 of the IPC . The murder is committed with
the intention and knowledge. It is submitted that since the deceased was
against the relationship of accused with his daughter that ultimately the
accused committed this heinous crime of murdering the deceased. It is
submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence on record, the
prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
It can, therefore, be safely said that the prosecution has proved its case
against the accused and the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the
accused under Section 302 of the IPC. Both the sides have also cited various
judgments to substantiate their say.
10. We have heard the learned counsel at great length. We have gone
through the evidence on record. We have also gone through the written
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:36 :::
14
submissions.
11. On behalf of the prosecution, complainant Latika Dhanva was
examined as prosecution witness No.1 at Exh. 13. In her evidence she has
stated that at the time of incident she was residing at Milind Nagar, Kalyan.
She was residing with her daughter Alka, two sons Arvind and Manoj as well
as with his deceased husband Laxman. She has stated that her husband was
serving at Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and he used to go on duty
at 8.00 a.m. and used to come back about 12 Noon for taking food. At 5.00
p.m. he used to come back after his duty. In her evidence she has stated that
before four to five months prior to the incident, her daughter Alka was talking
with accused Shivaji and her husband Laxman saw them talking with each
other. Her husband warned accused No.1 not to talk with Alka. The witness
has further stated that on 24th October, 2000, at 8.00 p.m. accused No. 1
Shivaji came to their house. He closed the door of the house from inside.
Accused No.2 Amit Patil was also with accused No.1. Accused No.1 stabbed
the deceased on the left side of his stomach. She and her daughter went to
rescue Laxman. In her examination, she has stated that the accused stabbed
her husband twice. Thereupon her husband fell down. Accused No.2 caught
hold of her husband when accused No.1 stabbed her husband. The accused
thereafter ran away. In her evidence she has stated that she and one boy
removed her husband to the hospital and thereafter she filed a complaint
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
15
which is at Exh. 14. The said witness has identified gupti by which her
husband was stabbed. In the cross-examination she has stated that her room
was admeasuring 10′ x 10′. In the cross-examination she has stated that on
the date of the incident they were sitting in the said room and because of their
shouts some persons gathered outside the house. According to her, about 50
to 60 persons gathered at the time of the incident. She denied the suggestion
that there was love affair between her daughter Alka and the accused No.1.
12. The prosecution also examined the daughter of the victim Alka as
prosecution witness No.2 at Exh. 15. She has stated in her evidence that she
used to see accused No.1 Shivaji on the road and accused No.1 used to smile
at her. The said witness has stated that before four to five months prior to the
incident, she was speaking with accused Shivaji and at that time her father
Laxman came and told accused No.1 that he should not talk to her. Her
father gave a threat to accused No.1 that if he again talk with her, he would
file complaint against him in the police station. The said witness has stated
that the incident took place at about 8.10 p.m. on 24 th October, 2000. She
sated that accused Shivaji and his friend entered the house. She identified
both the accused. In her evidence she has stated that accused No.1 asked her
father as to why he did not allow him to talk with Alka. Her father told the
accused that he would like to speak to the accused in this behalf outside the
house. Accused No.1 caught hold of shirt of her father. She and her mother
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
16
Latika went to rescue her father but accused pushed her and her mother
aside. The accused was having a knife which was kept with him in the left side
of his waist. Accused stabbed her father with a gupti on the left side and he
stabbed him twice and her father fell down. The witness has further stated
that her mother and one boy took her father to the hospital and her father
died on the same day. She has stated that her father was stabbed by the
accused with gupti. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that she knew
the accused since about one year. She has further stated that she was having
love affair with accused No.1. she has stated that her family members did not
like the love affair with the accused No.1. In her cross-examination she stated
that her father told the accused that he would file a complaint if accused No.1
talked with her. She has stated that many people gathered outside the house.
13. The prosecution examined son of the deceased Arvind as
prosecution witness No. 3 at Exh. 16. He is aged about 14 years. The said
witness has stated that deceased Laxman was his father. The incident took
place on 24th October, 2000. At the time of incident he was at home. At about
i.30 p.m. in the evening his father returned from duty and about 8.30 p.m.
accused Shivaji and another accused came to their house. Accused Shivaji
closed the door from inside. Accused Shivaji told his father that he wanted to
talk with him. His father told him that he would talk with the accused outside
the house. The accused told him that he wants to talk there only. The accused
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
17
No.1 started beating his father and another accused pushed aside his mother
and sister. Accused No.1 Shivaji took out a gupti and stabbed his father on
stomach. When her mother tried to rescue his father, accused No.1 pushed
her. His father fell down and all of them started shouting. The said witness
further stated that her mother and one boy removed his father to the hospital
and his father died there. The witness also identified the gupti. In the cross-
examination the witness has stated that his statement and the statement of
his mother and sister were recorded one by one. The witness denied the
suggestion in the cross-examination that because of his father’s drinking habit
disputes took place between his father and neighbours.
14. One Rajendra Pashte was examined as prosecution witness No.4
by the prosecution at Exh. 22. The said witness is a panch witness. He signed
the memorandum of panchanama exh. 23. The said panchanama is in
connection with the discovery of the clothes of the accused Shivaji. The said
witness has stated in his evidence that he along with accused Shivaji and
one constable Bangare went to the house of accused Shivaji. He produced one
shirt and pant from the show case kept in his house. The police seized the
shirt and pant and prepared the discovery panchanama. In the cross-
examination the said witness has stated that the police chowky is near a shop
named Prem Auto. At the time of making panchanama, he was unemployed.
He has stated that he was knowing Police Constable Thorat as he used to meet
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
18
him in connection with his work. He stated that he did not know where
Thorat resides.
15. Prosecution examined one Balu Jadhav as prosecution witness No.
5 at Exh.25. The said witness was called as a panch witness at Mahatma Phule
Police Station where accused No.1 was also present there. Accused No.1 gave
a statement that he has kept his clothes in room at Milind Nagar. He sent the
discovery panchanama at Exh. 23. In the cross-examination the said witness
has stated that he was serving as a Gardner in Kalyan Municipal Corporation
and deceased Laxman was also serving in Kalyan Municipal Corporation in
Garden Department.
16. One Anant Patil was examined as prosecution witness No.6 at
Exh. 26 as a panch witness in connection with the discovery of gupti. The said
witness has stated that accused No.1 took him along with another panch and
police to a public latrine situate in Milind Nagar, Kalyan in Government jeep.
The accused produced one gupti hidden in heap of grass. Police seized the
gupti and the seizure panchanama was prepared at Exh. 28. In the cross-
examination, the said witness has admitted that he was serving as a Gardner
in Kalyan Municipal Corporation in the Garden Department. In the cross-
examination he has stated that he had gone to the hospital where Laxman was
admitted and he had attended his funeral also.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
19
17. One Mahesh Badhange was examined as prosecution witness no.
7. He was called as a panch witness. The said witness has stated that accused
was not arrested in his presence and clothes of the accused were not seized in
his presence.
18. The prosecution also examined the daughter of the deceased,
Anita as prosecution witness No. 8 at Exh. 36, who is aged about 12 years.
The trial Court had asked her few questions regarding the sanctity of the oath
and after recording the fact that the witness is aware of the sanctity of the
oath, oath was administered to the said witness. The said witness has stated in
her evidence that she knew accused No.1 Shivaji and accused No.2 Amit Patil.
The said witness has stated that her father had slapped accused No.1 as he
was talking with her sister. The said witness has stated that on 24 th October,
2000 she was at home and her sister and her brothers Arvind and Manoj and
her father were present at home. They were watching T.V. and at that time
accused Shivaji and Amit Patil entered the house. Amit Patil fastened the latch
of the door from inside and her father told the accused Laxman that whatever
they wanted to speak, they should speak outside the house but accused
Shivaji insisted that he wants to speak to her father inside the room. The
accused Shivaji asked her father as to why he is not allowing his daughter
Alka to meet him. The accused Shivaji thereafter took out a gupti and stabbed
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
20
his father on the stomach. Her mother and sister tried to stop the accused but
the accused Amit Patil caught hold of her mother and her sister Alka. Then
accused Shivaji inflicted a second stab on the stomach of her father. The said
witness has stated that accused Shivaji also her aside and her sister and her
mother. In her evidence she has stated that her father fell down on the floor.
Accused No.1 and Amit Patil thereafter ran way. The said witness has stated
that her mother took her father to the Municipal Hospital. She has identified
the weapon i.e. gupti. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that their
relationship with the persons who were residing in the chawl were not good.
She has stated that before talking to the police regarding the incident, she did
not tell about the incident to anybody. In the cross-examination she has
stated that her father was taken to the hospital in one rickshaw. She has
stated that her mother and the rickshawala placed her father in the rickshaw
and the persons residing in the neighbourhood did not come to take her father
in the rickshaw. She has stated that rickshaw came within five minutes on the
call given by her mother. In the cross-examination she has stated that on the
day of the incident, for the first time, she saw accused No.2 Amit Patil. She
has further stated that since his name was declared in the newspaper and,
therefore, she came to know about the name of the said person. She has
stated that she had seen accused No.1 before the incident.
19. One Pandit Salve was examined as prosecution witness No.9 at
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
21
Exhibit-39 who was called as a panch witness on 26th October, 2000. The said
witness has stated that the accused was not arrested in his presence.
20. One Janardhan S. Kale was examined as prosecution witness No.
10 at Exh. 42. The said witness has stated that victim Laxman was having one
daughter but he stated that he did not know who killed Laxman. The said
witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.
21. The prosecution also examined Mahendra Bhoir as prosecution
witness No.11 at Exh. 43 who was called as a panch witness . The said witness
was declared hostile.
22. The prosecution also examined one Ganesh Matkar as prosecution
witness No.12 at Exh. 47. The said witness has stated that his friend Sandip
Jadhav was residing in Milind Nagar area of Kalyan. He used to go to Milind
Nagar area. The said witness has stated that he knew Amit Patil, accused No.
2. He stated that he did not know the person named Laxman Dhanva. The
witness further stated that he did not now Laxman’s daughter’s name. The
said witness has stated that on 24th October, 2000, the incident took place at
about 8.30 p.m. He had gone to his friend Sandip Kesarkar’s house for a party
and his other friends Yogesh Wagle, Mangesh Gaikwad and Sandip Kesarkar
were there. At the time when they were proceeding towards their home, they
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
22
saw the crowd near one chawl in Milind Nagar and accordingly they went
there. The said witness has stated that thereafter his friends went there . He
also went inside the room and saw one person was resting his back to the wall
and blood was oozing from his stomach. The witness has stated that Mangesh
Gaikwad tied towel around the stomach of that person and in one rickshaw
they took him to Municipal Hospital. He has stated that the accused were not
present on the site. The said witness has stated that Mangesh Gaikwad has
taken a towel from the house of the deceased but he stated that he had not
seen anybody in the house. The said witness has stated that he did not go to
the hospital. He stated that his friend Yogesh had gone to the hospital. He has
stated that between his house and Laxman’s house, there are about 20 to 30
houses. In the cross-examination the said witness has admitted that only he
and his friends went inside the room and they called the persons from the
group to remove the deceased in the rickshaw but nobody came to help them.
He has stated that at that time relatives of the deceased had not come there.
He further stated that deceased was initially alive and was demanding water.
23. The prosecution also examined Dr. Dondiram Tatoba Gokhale as
prosecution witness No. 13 at Exh. 49. The aforesaid witness has stated in his
evidence that on 24th October, 2000 dead body of the person named Laxman
Dhanva was brought at Rukminibai Hospital by his relatives. The said doctor
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
23
examined the victim and he found that he is already dead. Therefore, he
informed the police about the incident. The police thereafter prepared the
inquest panchanama of the dead body. The said doctor carried out the post
mortem of the dead body. As per the post mortem report, there were two
perforating stab injuries over left side of the abdomen of the deceased. The
doctor has described the said injury in his evidence. According to the evidence
of the said doctor, the first injury which is mentioned as “A” in the report was
on the left hypochondriac region of the body. This injury was 2 inches below
from left costal margin and the said injury was ½ inch x ¼ inch deep on
superior medical medical direction. Injury “B” was over the inter costal line
and it was below ¾ inch below the injury mentioned above as “A”. The size of
the injury was ½ inch x ½ inch x 8 inch deep superio medial direction. The
said witness has also stated about the bleeding and blood in the abdomen. He
has stated that there was a bleeding of over 2 litres of blood. The doctor found
that in the small intestine there was cut rupture at 4 sites. According to the
evidence of the said doctor, the cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to
haemoperitoneum due to perforating stab injuries. The said witness was
shown gupti and stated that the aforesaid injuries are possible by the said
gupti and stated that such injuries are possible if the person is stabbed twice
with this gupti. In the cross-examination the said doctor has stated that in
case a person is given treatment immediately after he suffered above
mentioned injury, the person may survive. The said witness has denied the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
24
suggestion that the deceased Laxman died due to the shock of stabbing.
24. The prosecution examined one Mangesh Gaikwad as prosecution
witness No.14 at Exh.52. The said witness has stated that on 24th October
2000 the incident in question took place at about 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. The
incident took place at Milind Nagar area at Kalyan. He had gone to the house
of his friend Sandip Jadhav. He stated that he, along with his friend, Sandip
Jadhav went to the spot of the incident and saw the deceased was lying in a
pool of blood resting his back to the wall and he was demanding water.
According to the said witness, Yogesh Wagle gave water to the injured. He
took towel which was hanging on the rope and Yogesh Wagle took the victim
in a rickshaw to the hospital. He has stated that he did not know who had
stabbed the victim. The said witness was declared hostile.
25. The prosecution examined Bhagat Bhangare as prosecution
witness No.15 who was serving as a PI at the relevant time in Mahatma Phule
Police Station, Kalyan. The said witness has stated that a complaint filed by
Latika was taken by PSI Patil and on the basis of the same he registered Crime
No. I-326/2000. He deputed PSI Shirsagar to bring the accused in the police
station and he directed PSI Kamble to prepare the inquest panchanama on the
dead body of the deceased. The said witness visited the spot of the incident on
24-10-2000. The accused Amit Patil was produced before him by PSI Saghe
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
25
whom he interrogated. The said witness had prepared the arrest panchanama
on 24th October, 2000. The clothes of the deceased were brought before the
said witness on 25th October, 2000 by Constable Dhamal. The said police
officer also recorded the statement of the witness Alka. The said witness has
stated that on 27th October, 2000, the accused Shivaji was in P.C.R. and he
showed his willingness to produce gupti and accordingly in a Government
jeep he travelled along with accused Shivaji and panch witnesses. From the
grass, the accused Shivaji produced one gupti stained with blood. The
discovery panchanama was accordingly prepared.
26. So far as the evidence of complainant PW1 Latika as well as the
evidence of PW 2 Alka and evidence of PW 3 Arvind is concerned, it is
required to be noted that each of these witnesses has witnessed the incident
and they are the eye witnesses to the incident in question. Witness Latika has
given full particulars about the incident in question. Her presence in the
house at about 8.00 p.m. is most natural as she is the housewife and,
therefore, naturally her presence at that time cannot be ruled out. As per the
evidence of the said witness, the incident took place in her presence and
accused Shivaji stabbed her husband in her presence. As per the evidence of
the said witness, she and her daughter Alka went to rescue her husband but in
vain and the accused thereafter ran away. The evidence of the said witness
gets complete corroboration from the evidence of PW 2, who is the daughter
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
26
of deceased Laxman. The said witness Alka has also narrated the incident and
she has stated that she and her mother i.e. PW1 tried to rescue her father and
accused No.1 stabbed her father twice. The said witness has clearly admitted
in her cross-examination when a question was put to her that she was having
love affair with accused No.1 and her family members did not like her love
affair with the accused. The evidence of PW 1 and 2, in our view, is absolutely
trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve the said witnesses simply
because they are relative of the deceased and that they are interested
witnesses. It is a well settled proposition of law that simply because the
witness is a relative, the evidence of the said witness cannot be discarded on
the said ground, provided the same is trustworthy. PW 2 Alka admitted her
affairs with accused No.1 and she has stated that her father told accused No.1
that he should talk outside the house. The said aspect is also corroborated by
PW 3 Arvind. In our view, there is absolutely no reason to discard the
evidence of PW1 and PW2 who have witnessed the incident and their
presence in the house is absolutely natural one. Similarly, so far as PW 3 is
concerned, he has also given similar version and pointed out as to how the
incident in question has happened. All the aforesaid witnesses have seen the
incident and stated that accused Shivaji gave two gupti blows to the deceased.
The said version is even corroborated by medical evidence as the doctor has
also certified that there were two blows inflicted on the deceased and the said
blows were possible by weapon in question i.e. gupti. The evidence of the said
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
27
witness is, therefore, clearly corroborated by the doctor’s evidence. In our
view, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the evidence of the aforesaid
three witnesses in any manner. It is true, as argued by the learned counsel for
appellant, that the two witnesses i.e. PW 12 and PW 14 have given different
versions in their evidence as the said witnesses have stated that none of the
relatives were present at the relevant time. PW 12 has stated that on the
relevant day he along with his friend Sandip Wagle, Mangesh Gaikwad and
Sandip Kesarkar were proceeding towards their house and at that time they
witnessed the incident. The said witness has stated that he had taken the
deceased to the hospital and that the accused were not present on the spot.
According to the said witness, he was in the company of Mangesh Gaikwad,
another friend. The said witness Mangesh Gaikwad is declared as hostile by
the prosecution and in our view the evidence of the said witness is not at all
believable. It is true, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, that
when there are two sets of evidence, one in favour of the accused should be
believed but when the evidence of PW 14 is taken out from consideration, as
it is clear that he has resorted to falsehood though it is true that PW 12 is not
declared hostile, his evidence shows that one person was found sitting and
resting his back to the wall and blood was oozing from his stomach. The said
witness has admitted in his cross-examination that Mangesh Gaikwad had
taken the towel from the house of the deceased but he did not see anybody in
the house. Though in his examination in chief he has stated that in one
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
28
rickshaw he along with his friends took the victim at the hospital but in the
cross-examination in para 3 he has admitted that he had not gone to the
hospital but his friend Yogesh had gone to the hospital. In our view, evidence
of PW 12 cannot be said to be trustworthy and it is no doubt true that he has
not been declared hostile but considering the evidence as a whole, in our
view, on the basis of the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW3, the prosecution
can be said to have established their case beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant-accused.
27.
Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage relied upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harchand Singh and another vs.
State of Haryana1 wherein the Supreme Court has held that when there are
two sets of evidence, one in favour of the accused should be accepted. In the
instant case, PW 1 and PW 3 have clearly given full description of the incident
and their presence in the scene of offence was most natural. It is not possible
to believe that, as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, none of
the so-called eye witnesses were present in the house. As pointed out earlier,
the incident happened at about 8 p.m. Naturally presence of witness No.1
can be said to be most natural at the house. Similar is the position so far as
the other witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW3 are concerned. So far as PW 12 is
concerned, he has clearly stated that he is not aware about any love affair of
the daughter of the victim with the appellant. As against this, PW2 has
1 (1974) 3 SCC 397
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
29
clearly stated in her evidence that she had an affair with the accused and her
father was annoyed because of such relationship and in the past her father
has scolded the accused which ultimately resulted into the unfortunate
incident on the relevant day. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it is not
possible to accept the say of the learned counsel for the appellant that we
should accept the evidence of PW 12 and discard the evidence of PW Nos. 1, 2
and 3, especially when, in our view, presence of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at the
house is most natural at their house and their evidence is corroborated by the
medical evidence as regards the fatal blows inflicted on the victim. The
learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh vs. State of Haryana1 wherein it is
held that when there are two pieces of evidence in regard to the same fact,
both uncontroverted and uncorroborated, the benefit of doubt must go to the
accused.
28. Regarding the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
that the towel was wrapped by PW 12 and PW 14. It is required to be noted
that PW 14 has stated that he took towel which was hanging on the rope and
tied the towel on the stomach of the injured. The said witness has already
been declared as hostile. His evidence is not at all believable. It is true that the
presence of towel is noticed at the time when the deceased was brought to the
hospital. Simply because PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have not stated anything
1 (2002) 10 SCC 461
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
30
regarding towel, in our view, it is not such an omission by which their entire
evidence can be discarded, if otherwise their evidence is found to be
trustworthy. In our view, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case
beyond reasonable doubt in view of the unimpeachable trustworthy evidence
of prosecution witness Nos. 1 to 3.
29. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
that the panch witnesses are interested witnesses, it is required to be noted
that two of the witnesses were knowing the deceased. Simply because they
were knowing the deceased itself is not a ground to discard the version of the
panch witnesses. So far as the panchanama regarding recovery of the clothes
of the accused is concerned, he had taken the panchas at his house and from
the cupboard the said clothes were recovered. So far as recovery of article
used in the offence i.e. gupti, no doubt the same is recovered near a public
toilet. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has rightly pointed out that it
was hidden in the grass and it was found out after about five days.
Subsequently even as per the evidence of the doctor, the injury in question is
possible by the aforesaid weapon i.e. gupti. The learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that if recovery is from a place which is accessible to
public, no reliance can be placed on such evidence. He has relied upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Trimbak vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh1 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:
1 AIR 1954 SC 39
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
31
“4. It is settled law that the presumption of the innocence
of an accused person is reinforced by an order of acquittal
and a heavy onus rests on the prosecution in an appeal
from such an order to prove that the order is manifestly
erroneous. The High Court seems to have approached the
case as if it was considering an appeal preferred against his
conviction by an accused person. The Magistrate came to
the conclusion that the witnesses for the discovery were
interested in the prosecution and were not on good terms
with the appellant, that the kangi from where the property
is said to have been taken was in the open and easily
accessible to all the sundry and that in these circumstances
it was not safe to hold that the place was in the possession
of the accused or that the property was recovered from his
possession. The learned Judges in the High Court,
however, took the view that the ornaments belonging to
the complainant were taken out by the respondent from
the field of Namdeo Anand and that the respondent having
given no explanation regarding his knowledge of the place
from which the ornaments were taken out, it must be
presumed that he must have kept the ornaments there. It
was further held that the fact that the field did not belong
to the respondent and that the place was accessible to
others would not show that the ornaments were not in his
possession but were kept by someone else, in the absence
of a statement from the respondent explaining the
circumstances under which he came to know about the
ornaments.
6. When the field from which the ornaments were
recovered as an open one, and accessible to all and sundry,
it is difficult to to hold positively that the accused was in
possession of these articles. The fact of recovery by the
accused is compatible with the circumstance of somebody
else having placed the Articles there and of the accused
somehow acquiring knowledge about their whereabouts
and that being so, the fact of discovery cannot be regarded
as conclusive proof that the accused was in possession of
these articles.”
The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance of the decision
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
32
of the Supreme Court in the case of Kora Khasi vs. State of Orissa1 and a
decision of this Court in the case of Jaysingh vs. State of Maharashtra2 in
support of his argument as regards recovery of articles from an open place. In
the instant case, though it is true that the recovery is made after five days of
the incident, the weapon used in the offence i.e. gupti was not found at open
place but it was found in a hidden place which was not accessible to others.
30. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while
considering the evidence relating to recovery, Courts should exercise utmost
caution and care. To fortify his submission, the learned counsel has relied
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Himachal Pradesh
Administration vs. Om Prakash3 and Sanjay vs. State (NCT of Delhi)4.
31. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
doctor has not stated in his evidence that the injury in question is likely to
cause death. In order to support his submission, the learned counsel has
relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vadla
Chandraiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh5, Chilamakur vs. State o f Andhra
Pradesh6, Chuttan and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh7 and a decision of
1 AIR 1963 SC 360
2 1999 Cri.L.J. 1687
3 (1972) 1 SCC 249
4 (2001) 3 SCC 190
5 (2006) 13 SCC 587
6 (1977) 3 SCC 560
7 (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 594
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
33
this Court(Nagpur Bench) in the case of Vinod s/o Bapuna Kolhe vs. State of
Maharashtra1. In the instant case, however, the doctor has clearly stated in his
evidence in para 9 that the death was caused on account of haemorrhagic
shock due to haemoperitoneum due to perforating stab injuries. The doctor
was shown the weapon i.e. gupti and the doctor has opined that the two stab
injuries on the person of the deceased are possible by this weapon. In our
view, therefore, simply because the doctor has not stated in his evidence that
the injuries in question are likely to cause death is no ground for coming to
the conclusion that the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC
but it may fall under Section 304 Part-I or II of the IPC. Learned counsel for
the appellant has invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Nachittar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2 . In the aforesaid case
the Supreme Court has held that the medical witnesses did not categorically
opine that the injuries found on the deceased, collectively or individually,
were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that all the
medical evidence amounts to is that those injuries found on the deceased
were likely to cause death. The Supreme Court, therefore, considering the
facts of the said case found that the only reasonable inference that can be
drawn is that the accused-appellant caused the injuries to the deceased only
with the knowledge that he would likely to cause death of the deceased and
on that basis conviction was altered from one under Section 302 to that under
1 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 350
2 (1982) 1 SCC 609
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
34
Section 304 Part I of IPC. So far as the present case is concerned, the doctor
has clearly stated that in his opinion the deceased was stabbed twice with the
gupti and according to him it is not true that deceased died of the shock of
the stabbing. The doctor has stated that in case a person is given treatment
immediately after he suffered the injury he may survive but that itself is not
sufficient to hold that the incident will fall under Section 304 Part I. Looking
to the injury in question and considering the fact that the accused gave two
gupti blows on the stomach of the deceased, in our view, the trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.
32. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if on the
evidence before the Court two views are possible, the view favourable to the
accused must be accepted. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harchand Singh and
another vs. State of Haryana1 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:
“The function of the Court in a criminal trial is to find
whether the person arraigned before it as the accused is
guilty of the offence with which he is charged. For this
purpose the court scans the material on record to find
whether there is any reliable and trustworthy evidence upon
the basis of which it is possible to found the conviction ofthe accused and to hold that he is guilty of the offence with
which he is charged. If in a case the prosecution leads two
sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts and strikes at
the other and shows it to be unreliable, the result would
necessarily be that the court would be left with no reliable
1 (1974)3 SCC 397::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
35and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the
accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have
the benefit of such a situation.”In the present case, it cannot be said that there are two sets of evidence, one
favours the prosecution and other favours the accused. As a matter of fact, out
of two prosecution witnesses i.e. PW 12 and PW 14, PW 14 is already declared
hostile. So far as PW 12 is concerned, it can be said that he was at the site but
considering the overall evidence on record, PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have given full
particulars about the entire incident and the said evidence is sufficient to
bring home the charges levelled against the accused.
33. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan1 wherein
the Supreme Court has held that when a witness is not declared hostile,
defence can rely upon evidence of such witness and it would be binding on
the prosecution. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari vs. State (N.C.T. Of
Delhi)2, wherein the view taken was that when prosecution witness is not
supporting the accused can rely upon his evidence. In para 34 of the said
judgment it is held as under.
“34. The learned counsel for the appellant also urged that
it was the case of the prosecution that the police had
1 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1050
2 2005 CRI.L.J. 2569::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
36requisitioned a maruti car from Ved Prakash Goel. Ved
Prakash Goel had been examined as a prosecution witness
in this case as PW 1. He, however, did not support the
prosecution. The prosecution never declared PW 1 hostile.His evidence did not support the prosecution. Instead, it
supported the defence. The accused hence can rely on thatevidence.”
34. The learned counsel for the appellant has also invited our
attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhram vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh1 wherein it has been held that in view of the version
given by the prosecution witnesses which are in conflict with each other the
conviction of the appellant under the two charges cannot be sustained.
35. In the case of Pradeep s/o Narayanrao Rajgure vs. State of
Maharashtra2 this Court has held that when recovery of bloodstained clothes
and sword were made at the instance of the accused and which were not
identified by the panch witnesses, such recovery evidence cannot be relied
upon to convict the accused in the absence of identification of said articles by
the panch witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manohar Balaram
Khanavkar vs. State of Maharashtra 3 in support of his contention. In the
present case, the recovery of gupti was made at the instance of the panchas.
Similar is the position as regards recovery of the clothes of the accused is
concerned. To buttress the point regarding recovery of clothes, the learned
1 AIR 1989 SC 772
2 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1308
3 2003 All MR (Cri)1609 1609::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
37counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in
the case of Sanjay s/o Keshavrao Dhote vs. State of Maharashtra1. In the
present case, when substantial evidence is available on record regarding
recovery of articles supported by overwhelming evidence of eye witnesses on
record, in our view, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant
for the offence with which he is charged. The learned counsel for the
appellant, in support of his argument, relied on the disclosure statement. In
this connection, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case
of Devidas and others vs. State of Maharashtra2. In connection with this
argument, the learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Thimma vs. The State of Mysore3, (ii) Jaffer
Husain Dastagir vs. The State of Maharashtra4 and the decisions of this Court
in the cases of (i) Jaysing alias Gangawa Mesraj Kharariya and another vs.
State of Maharashtra5 and (ii) Ashok s/o Sonaji Bedke vs. State of
Maharashtra6.
36. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hem Raj and others vs. State of
Haryana7 wherein the Supreme Court has held that when no independent
1 2007 ALL MR (Cri.) 2762
2 1982 Cri.L.J. 2189
3 AIR 1971 SC 1871
4 AIR 1970 SC 1934
5 1999 Cri.L.J. 1687
6 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 965
7 2005 CRI.L.J. 2152::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
38witness, though available, was examined and not even an explanation was
sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the
prosecution case. The Supreme Court in the said case has held as under.
“One more aspect which deserves notice is that at the
alleged scene of offence no bloodstains were found by the
I.O. though he made a search. The surmise of the HighCourt that the blood stains at the public place would have
disappeared in view of the time gap between the incident
and the I.O’s inspection may not be correct, especially, in
view of the fact that it is a metal road, as shown by P.W.8
in the site plan and it was night time. It is difficult tobelieve that traces of blood would fade out by the time of
the visit of I.O. This is one of the circumstances that has tobe kept in mind while appreciating the prosecution case.”
The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Khima Vikamshi and others vs. State of
Gujarat1 and submitted that the absence of blood on the spot strongly suggests
that the incident did not occur in the house as alleged by the family members
of the deceased. However, as discussed earlier, in the instant case, P.W. Nos.
1, 2 and 3 who were present in the house were examined by the prosecution
and simply because no other witness from the vicinity is examined itself is no
ground for discarding the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses.
37. As regards motive, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied
1 (2003) 9 SCC 420
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
39upon the case of State of M.P. vs. Kriparam1 wherein the Supreme Court has
held as under:
“In this background if we consider the alleged motive, we
notice that the prosecution has stated that there was some
theft in the house of PW 4 about a month prior to the
incident in regard to which PW4 had complained to the
police blaming A-1’s family. The police were investigatingthe said case and this was the motive for the murder. We
notice, according to the prosecution case itself that after the
lodging of the complaint and till the date of incident there
had been no untoward incident of any kind between the two
families though they are neighbours. In such a situation it isextremely difficult to accept that the respondent herein
would entertain a motive to eliminate the son of PW 4 forhaving made a complaint against him or his family. Thus
even the motive suggested, in our view, is very weak. It is
based on these facts available from the evidence of theprosecution, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion
that it was not safe to base a conviction on the accused,
hence it allowed the appeal.”In the instant case, the prosecution has clearly established the motive as the
witness Alka was having love affair with accused-appellant.
38. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has
submitted that simply because related witnesses are there, their evidence
cannot be discarded. The learned APP has relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Lala Ram vs. State of Rajasthan2 and submitted
that there is no proposition in law that the evidence of the relatives cannot be
relied upon by the prosecution. The learned APP has placed reliance on the
1 (2003) 12 SCC 675
2 (2007) 10 SCC 225::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
40judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Singh Bhikamsingh Thakur
vs. State of Maharashtra1 and submitted that simply because the witnesses are
related would not result in the mechanical rejection of the testimony of the
witnesses. Settled norms of appreciation of evidence require that the
evidence of such witnesses is to be assessed with caution.
39. In our view, considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution
as a whole, it is clear that the prosecution has proved its case against the
appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant-accused gave two
gupti blows on the stomach of the deceased. The said gupti was recovered at
the instance of the appellant-accused. The motive behind the murder is
already proved by the prosecution and the injury sustained by the deceased is
also corroborated by the medical evidence. Considering the aforesaid factors
into consideration, in our view, it is established that the accused had
committed the aforesaid crime. In our view, the learned trial Judge was
perfectly justified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question. We,
therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
(P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)
(R.G. KETKAR,J.)
1 (2007) 2 SCC 310
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
41IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2002Shivaji @Shiva Shrimant Sonawane )
Hindu, adult, age 21 years, r/o Dnyandeo Jadhav Chawl, )
near Rationing shop, Milind Nagar, Kalyan (W), )
Dist. Thane (At present detained in Kolhapur Prison )…Appellantvs.
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the appellant.
Mr.D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
ig CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. Judgment reserved on: 19th January, 2010 Judgment pronounced on: 17 February, 2010 th P.C.For the reasons stated in the judgment, the Court passes the
following order.
“In our view, the learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in
convicting the appellant for the offence in question. We,
therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal
is accordingly dismissed.”
(P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)
(R.G. KETKAR,J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::
42::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:37 :::