1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 1989
1. Jayawant Chimanrao Kapre ]
aged 30, ]
2. Gulab Shivaji Kapre, ]
aged 19 years. ]
3. Kundalik Nivrutti Kapre ]
aged 25 years ]
4. Manik Mahadev Kapre ]
age 25 years ]
5. Balu alias Sudam Kapre ]
age 26 years ig ]
6. Dattatraya Sadashiv Khedekar ]
age 18 years ]
7. Vinayak Sahebrao Kapre ]
age 20 years ]
8. Hanumant Sahebrao Kapre ]
age 20 years ]
9. Ashok Ankush Kapre ]
age 20 years ]
10. Trimbak Rambhau Kapre ]
age 35 years, ]
All Agriculturists, ]
residing at Nazare Supe, ]..Appellants
Taluka Purandare, ](Original Accused
District : Pune ]Nos. 1,7,8,9,10,13,16
(at present in Central Prison) ]18,19 & 21)
versus
The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondents
Mr. R. R. Bhonsale for Appellants.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar - Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents -
State.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
2
CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 20.10.2010
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 29.10.2010
JUDGMENT : (Per : D. D. Sinha, J.)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Jayawant Kapre, Balu
alias Sudam Kapre and Trimbak Rambhau Kapre and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondents – State.
2.
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order
dated 12th January 1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune,
whereby the appellant Jayawant came to be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
suffer R.I. for life. Accused Jayawant, Balu and Trimbak were convicted
under Section 147, 148, 149, 247 and 325 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for
five years and were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default
to suffer R.I. for six months. Accused Jayawant and Balu were also
convicted along with other co-accused for the offence punishable under
Section 147, 148, 149, 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were
sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each,
in default to suffer R.I. for three months.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
3
3. In the instant case many accused were prosecuted, out of which
accused No.1 Jayawant was convicted for the offence of murder and other 9
accused were convicted for different offences. All the 10 accused preferred
the present appeal against the judgment and order passed by the trial court
dated 12th January 1989. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court
allowed criminal application No. 1364 of 2005 and permitted compounding
of offence in so far appellant nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are concerned and
therefore criminal appeal to that extent stands disposed of. The present
appeal now is only by the appellant no. 1 Jayawant, appellant no. 5 Balu
and appellant no. 10 Trimbak.
4. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:-
The incident took pace on 18th December 1986 at 2.30 p.m. in the
field known as “Shericha Mala” situate at Village Nazare Supe. The said
field was owned by deceased Bajirao Yeshwant Kapre. On the date of the
incident the election of Upsarpanch of Grampanchayat was scheduled. The
election ended smoothly. Subhash Shivram Kapre was elected as
Upsarpanch of Grampanchayat Nazare Supe. The entire village was divided
in two rival factions, one group was led by Congress-I and the another was
led by Janata Party. Deceased Bajirao Kapre, Upsarpanch Subhash Kapre
were strong supporters of Janata party. The motion of vote of no confidence
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
4
was brought against Upsarpanch by the Members of Congress-I group but it
did not succeed. Their efforts to remove Upsarpanch were not successful
and therefore they had an axe to grind against the Members of Janata Party.
Sarpanch deceased Bajirao Kapre, UPsarpanch Subhash Kapre and Jaising
Kapre were in the field known as “Shericha Mala”. It is the prosecution case
that at that time accused Jayawant Kapre gave a blow with the iron bar on
the head of Bajirao who fell down as a result of the blow. Upsarpanch
Subhash was assaulted by accused Jayawant by the same iron bar who also
fell down. Thereafter accused Trimbak beat Subhash by iron bar. The
accused Trimbak also participated in the assault. Shivaji Kapre (P.W. 1)
witnessed the incident from the short distance. He was in the field
collecting the fodder and after seeing the incident he raised alarm. Some of
the accused persons on hearing his shouts rushed towards him. He therefore
ran away from the field. It is the case of the prosecution that Shivaji Kapre
(P.W. 1) was with the injured persons i.e. deceased Bajirao, Jaising, Subhash
and Laxman at the relevant time. Bajirao and Subhash were severally
injured. All of them were lying in the pool of blood. After some time two
police personnel arrived on the spot. They stopped the truck which was
going by the nearby road loaded with the sugarcane. They put injured
Bajirao, Subhash and Jaising in the said trucks. Shivaji and Laxman also
boarded the said truck. The truck was brought to Jejuri Municipal Hospital.
Doctor who was on duty at the hospital, examined Bajirao and declared him
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
5
dead. Subhash and Jaising were unconscious. They were referred to
Sassoon Hospital, Pune for proper medical care and treatment. Police took
them to the Sassoon Hospital. Chandrakant, Bajirao and Appa were also
brought there. The First Information Report was lodged by Shivaji, Exhibit
41. On the basis of this report, offence was registered against the accused
persons. During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses
were recorded. Accused were arrested. Pursuant to Memorandum statements
discovery was effected. During the course of investigation dying
declarations of injured Subhash and Jaising were recorded. Dr. Waghmare
conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bajirao. On
completion of investigation, charge was framed against the appellants and
same was explained to them. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that evidence of
injured eye witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 Jaising Kapre, P.W. 5 Subhash Kapre and
P.W. 7 Mahadeo Kapre contains omissions, improvements, contradictions in
respect of material particulars of the prosecution case. Jaising has deposed
that all the accused persons encircled deceased, this witness, Shivaji (P. W.
1), Subhash (P.W. 5) and launched an assault. It is contended that this
witness has received injuries on his back and therefore it is difficult to
believe that this witness could have seen the incident. It is contended that
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
6
the evidence of P.W. 2 shows that he has exaggerated the incident to ensure
that all the accused persons who were from the opposite group be
implicated. This witness admitted hostility between the accused and
deceased on account of earlier litigations. It is submitted that the conduct of
this witness in not raising alarm or not doing anything for seeking help
when he saw the accused persons armed with weapons at the distance of 25
feet was unnatural and creates doubt about the presence of this witness. It is
contended that there is a variance in his previous statement (D.D.) and his
substantive evidence. Similarly the testimony of this witness is inconsistent
with the evidence of other alleged eye witnesses.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as
evidence of P.W. 5 Subhash Kapre is concerned, this witness himself has
admitted that all the accused persons were on inimical terms with the
deceased. He has not mentioned that the accused persons were armed with
iron bar. However, stated that the accused were armed with stones, sickles,
axes and chains. Similarly, in the previous statement of this witness Subhash
(D.D.) did not mention that Bajirao was assaulted. On the other hand stated
that the victims were assaulted with the stones and chains. This witness had
not mentioned about the assault by axes or iron bars. It is submitted that
testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence and therefore unsafe to
rely upon for awarding conviction.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
7
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as
evidence of P.W. 7 Mahadeo Kapre another alleged eye witness is
concerned, it is pertinent to note that this witness did not mention to the
police over the phone that accused no.1 assaulted deceased. This witness
has also not informed the police that Jaising (P.W. 2) was also assaulted by
the accused. The presence of this witness is doubtful as this witness has
stated that at the relevant time he was grazing sheeps near the water
reservoir. It is further submitted that the evidence of this witness is also not
consistent in respect of assault alleged to have been committed by the
accused on the victims and is in variance with the material particulars of the
prosecution case. The presence of this witness appears to be highly doubtful
in view of the conduct of this witness in not raising alarm at the relevant
time.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that so far as
evidence of P.W. 3 Appa Kapre (injured eye witness) is concerned, it is
submitted that conduct of this witness makes the presence of this witness at
the relevant time improbable and doubtful as he raised no alarms / shouts
when he saw the accused coming towards him. The prosecution has not
proved motive / reasons why the accused assaulted him. It is further
contended that this witness was present in the field busy doing agricultural
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
8
operations and therefore the presence of this witness at the scene of offence
is also doubtful.
9. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that
P.W. 4 Chandrakant Kapre is another injured eye witness who has admitted
that all the accused were on cross terms with the deceased. However the
accused had no motive or reasons to assault this witness. Therefore
evidence of this witness does not appear to be probable. He is a chance
witness who came out of the sugarcane field on hearing the commotion and
claimed to have witnessed the incident. He did not raise alarm. The evidence
of this witness would show that at the time of incident he was in the field
where the sugarcane crop was standing and therefore it was not possible for
him to witness the alleged incident which he claimed to have seen after
coming out of the sugarcane field. The learned counsel for the appellants
therefore contended that the evidence of eye witnesses P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 as
well as evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 in respect of incident of assault is
contradictory to each other and in variance with material particulars of the
prosecution case and creates serious doubt about the authenticity thereof
and therefore ought not to have been relied upon by the trial court.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the
evidence of eye witnesses is also not consistent with the medical evidence.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
9
It is submitted that while conducting the post-mortem examination on the
dead body of deceased Bajirao, doctor noticed only two injuries on the head
of the deceased, out of which injury no. 1 only was fatal to the deceased. It
is contended that as per the case of the prosecution accused No.1 gave only
one blow on the head of the deceased, however there were two injuries
found on the head of the deceased. The prosecution failed to establish which
out of these two injuries found on the head of the deceased was caused by
accused no. 1. It is no doubt true that the deceased had as many as 22
injuries on his back, however the cause of death as per the doctor was shock
due to head injury with fracture. It is therefore contended that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution apart from being inconsistent with material
evidence is also untrustworthy.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that so far as
recovery of weapon is concerned, it cannot be relied on since panch witness
has admitted that none of the accused were present in the police station,
panchnama was already written and panch witness was asked to sign the
same. The learned counsel for the appellants therefore submitted that the
entire prosecution case is untrustworthy and therefore the impugned
judgment and order so far as three appellants are concerned is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
10
12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand has
supported the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court so
far as the present three appellants are concerned. It is submitted that P.W. 1
Shivaji unfolded the material particulars of the prosecution case that the
accused came on the spot armed with weapons like axes, iron bars, cycle
chains, lathis and guptis, they encircled the deceased Bajirao, Subhash,
Jaising and Laxman. Accused No. 1 Jayawant gave a blow with iron bar on
the head of Bajirao who fell down as a result of this blow. Thereafter
Subhash was assaulted by accused No. 1 Jayawant by the iron bar, he too
fell down on the ground. Then Trimbak beat Subhash by the iron bars and
sticks. Other accused also participated in the assault. It is submitted that
evidence of P.W. 2 Jaising corroborates the testimony of P.W. 1 Shivaji who
has stated that the accused were armed with iron bars, lathis, axes, encircled
deceased and others and launched an assault. Bajirao fell down on the
ground as a result of the assault made by accused Jayawant, accused Balu
and accused Ashok also beat him. This witness suffered bleeding injury. It is
submitted that the evidence of P.W. 7 Mahadeo is also consistent with the
material particulars of the prosecution case and corroborates the testimony
of other eye witnesses.
13. It is contended that in the instant case Bajirao succumbed to the
injuries sustained by him during the course of assault. P.W. 5 Subhash and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
11
P.W. 2 Jaising also sustained injuries in the said assault. It is contended that
suggestions given by the defence to the eye witnesses that they have
implicated the accused in view of the rivalry between the two groups has no
basis particularly because the evidence of eye witnesses is consistent,
cogent and is corroborated by the medical evidence. Similarly P.W. 5
Subhash and P.W. 2 Jaising are also injured witnesses. It is contended that
merely because some of the witnesses are related to the injured person that
by itself does not render their evidence untrustworthy if it is otherwise
cogent and reliable. The contradictions and omissions which are brought in
the testimony of some of the prosecution witnesses are not of a material
nature and therefore it does not affect the credibility of the prosecution
evidence. It is contended that the trial court was justified in accepting the
prosecution evidence which has been corroborated by the medical evidence
and the trial court was justified in convicting the appellants for the offences
charged.
14. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel
for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and also scrutinised the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. At the
outset, we want to express that in the instant case in all 29 accused were
prosecuted for commission of various offences punishable under the Indian
Penal Code, however the trial court convicted 10 accused for commission of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
12
different offences punishable under the Code. The present appeal has been
filed by those 10 accused persons who were convicted by the trial court.
During the pendency of the appeal, appellant nos, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have
compounded the offences and this Court vide Order dated 10th March 2005
in view of the compounding of offences disposed of the appeal of appellant
nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The criminal appeal survived only in relation to
appellant no. 1 Jayawant, appellant no. 5 Balu and appellant no. 10 Trimbak
and was heard finally on merits.
15. The important evidence is of eye witnesses P.W. Shivaji Sarjerao
Kapre, P.W. 2 Jaising Kashinath Kapre, P.W. 5 Subhash Shivram Kapre and
P.W. 7 Mahadeo Sarjerao Kapre. Similarly, evidence of eye witnesses P.W.
3 Appa Sarjerao Kapre and P.W. 4 Chandrakant Bajirao Kapre is in respect
of main incident of assault in which Bajirao and other prosecution
witnesses received injuries, Bajirao succumbed to the injuries. It will be
appropriate at this stage to consider the evidence of these witnesses.
16. P.W. 1 Shivaji in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 18th
December 1986 at about 2.30 p.m. after election, Bajirao (deceased),
Subhash (P.W. 5), Jaising (P.W. 2), Laxman and Shri Deo and one
Gramsevak Mahadeo (P.W. 7) went to the field known as “Shericha Mala”.
After some time Shri Deo, Election Officer, Mahadeo left the said field. It
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
13
has come in the examination-in-chief of this witness that all the accused
persons armed with various weapons like axes, iron bars, cycle chains,
lathis, and guptis came from northern side of the river. All these accused
encircled Bajirao, Subhash, Jaising and Laxman. Accused Jayawant gave
blow with an iron bar on the head of Bajirao. This witness saw the incident
from 70 to 80 paces. Bajirao fell down on the ground as a result of the said
blow. Subhash was also assaulted by accused Jayawant by iron bar who
also fell down. Trimbak and other co-accused beat Subhash by iron bar and
sticks. Accused no. 24 Pralhad also beat him by stick. This witness has
further stated that accused 19 Ashok beat Jaising with iron bar. This witness
has stated that on seeing the said incident he started shouting. Shouts were
heard by some of the accused persons who rushed towards him and
therefore he started running away from the said place towards Village
Chikanewadi. This witness has further stated in his evidence that his brother
Appa (P.W. 3) was doing agricultural operations in the field. Appa was also
assaulted. One Chandrakant was watering sugarcane crop in the adjacent
land. On hearing shouts of Appa he came out of the sugarcane crop and on
seeing him the accused persons also started assaulting him. As per the
testimony of this witness when he came back to “Shericha Mala” he saw
Bajirao, Jaising, Subhash and Laxman were on the spot in the injured
condition. This witness thereafter went to Jejuri Police Station and lodged
the complaint, Exhibit 41.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
14
17. In the cross-examination of this witness it has come that the first
attack was made by the accused on Bajirao, which continued for about 4-5
minutes. The next attack was made on Subhash which continued for
2-4minutes and the third attack was on Jaising who was assaulted for about
5-6 minutes. Some contradictions and omissions which are brought out by
the defence in his evidence, in our view, are not material in nature and it
does not affect the veracity of the testimony of this witness.
18. P.W. 2 Jaising in his examination-in-chief has stated that the accused
persons came on the spot in a group armed with weapons like iron rods,
bars, lathis, axes and encircled him and others and started assaulting him
and others. This witness has stated that accused Jayawant was holding stick
and gave a blow on the head of Bajirao as a result Bajirao fell down on the
spot. He has further stated that accused Jayawant also beat him by stick on
his head. Accused Balu, accused Ashok also beat him. According to this
witness accused Balu assaulted him by a blunt side of an axe.
19. In the cross examination of this witness (P.W. 2) it has come that he
noticed the arrival of the accused persons from the distance of about 25 ft.
They were armed with weapons. This witness was standing near the tractor.
It has also come in the cross-examination of this witness that when the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
15
accused persons came close to him and were saying “Hana Mara” (in
vernacular). This witness further stated in the cross-examination that this
witness as well as the others were assaulted by the accused near the cattle
shed of Bajirao. The evidence of this witness does not suffer from material
omissions and contradictions and corroborates the material particulars of the
prosecution case.
20. P.W. 5 Subhash in his examination-in-chief has stated that all the
accused persons came on the spot from the side of the river armed with
stones, sticks, axes, chains. Accused Jayawant was armed with iron bar and
assaulted Bajirao on his head with the same. Bajirao fell down on the
ground as a result of the said assault. According to this witness accused
Trimbak assaulted him by iron bar. He has further stated that all the accused
persons started beating him, Bajirao and Jaising. The defence though
conducted lengthy cross-examination of this witness, however, failed to get
any material which would affect the veracity of the testimony of this
witness.
21. So far as evidence of P.W. 7 Mahadeo is concerned, he claimed that
accused Jayawant was armed with iron bar, accused Trimbak was also
armed with iron bar, accused Sudam and accused Vinayak were armed with
axes. This witness has stated that deceased Bajirao, P.W. 5 Subhash,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
16
Laxman and Jaising were visible to him from the place where they were
standing. This witness has stated that six persons along with accused
Jayawant started assaulting Bajirao and others. In the cross examination of
this witness it has come that this witness saw the incident while he was
standing on the bank of the river.
22. The evidence of P.W. 3 Appa demonstrates that on 18th December
1986 at about 3.00 p.m. he was in his field doing agricultural operations.
He was alone in the land. At that time 10 persons came running towards
him. They wee accused Vinayak, accused Hanumant, accused Manik,
accused Kundlik, accused Sudam @ Balu, accused Dattatraya, accused
Jayawant, accused Chimanrao, accused Gulab Shivaji, they were armed
with weapons like axes, iron bars, sticks, chains. According to this witness
all those accused persons beat him and as a result of the said assault he
received injuries on his buttocks, both arms and legs. This witness has
stated in general that all the accused came and assaulted him. In the cross
examination this witness has stated that he saw the accused persons from the
distance of 15-20 paces. They came in one group and as soon as he saw
them he started running away from the said spot. He has further stated in
his cross-examination that while he was running away from the spot the
assailants followed him and inflicted injuries on his back and due to the
said assault this witness fell down on the ground. He has stated that the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
17
assailants beat him for about 5-10 minutes.
23. It is pertinent to note that the eye witnesses were injured in the
assault, their presence on the scene of offence more or less is not in dispute.
The testimony of these witnesses is also consistent with the material
particulars of the prosecution case and corroborates the evidence of each
other. The evidence of these witnesses is also corroborated by the medical
evidence. P.W. 10 Dr. Wagholikar examined P.W. 5 Subhash, P.W. 2 Jaising.
Medical Officer noticed the following injuries on the person of P.W. 5
Subhash:
1. Contusion over Rt. scapular region, 3″ x 1″.
2. Six contusions of size 4″ x 5″ x 1″ over Rt. thigh laterally.
3. Contusion over lower abdomen, horizontally placed, 5″ x 1″.
4. Abrasion over Rt. Knee 1″ x 1/2″.
5. Diffuse swelling of Rt. knee and Rt. ankle joint with restricted
movements. Fracture dislocated of Rt. Knee was suspected. It was
also suspected that the tibia and fibula were also fractured.
Medical Officer opined that these injuries could be caused by hard and blunt
substance such as sticks or iron bars and they were caused within six hours.
Exhibit 53 is the certificate issued by the medical officer in respect of the
injuries sustained by P.W. 5 Subhash.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
18
24. Similarly, P.W. 10 Dr. Wagholikar on examining P.W. 2 Jaising
noticed the following injuries:
1. Six contusions all over back of size 4 to 5″ x 1″.
2. Diffuse swelling, tenderness, restricted movements, Rt. fore arm and
Rt. leg. Fractures of Rt. radius and ulna, middle 1/3 region and
fracture on Rt. tibia and fibula, middle 1/3 region.
3. C.L.W. over left parietal region, 3″ 1/4″ x 1/4″
As per the opinion of the doctor the injuries could have been caused by hard
and blunt object like iron bars and sticks.
25. P.W. 14 Dr. Waghmare who has examined P.W. 3 Appa noticed
following injuries sustained by this witness :
1. 1 ½ ft. linear wheel about 2 cms, broad and was over the left upper
arm upto the T-5, 3 cm. below the shoulder Jt.
2. 8 inches liniear wheel 6 inches below the shoulder Jt., at the level of
small pox.
3. Linear wheel below the injury No. 26 x 1 cm. transverse.
4. Swelling and redness present over both the upper arms.
5. Multiple wheel marks all over the back.
As per the opinion of the Dr. Waghmare the injuries noticed on the person of
this witness are possible by sticks and iron bars.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
19
Lastly, P.W. 4 Chandrakant also suffered following injuries:
1. C.L.W. 21 c.m. rt. forearm, 10 cm. distal to elbow jt. It was sub
cutaneous deep with haemotoma.
2. Swelling of left arm without any fracture.
3. Swelling on the back.
4. Swelling on left lower limb, No visible injury.
P.W. 14 opined that the injuries sustained by this witness could have been
caused by hard and blunt object like sticks and iron bars.
26. It is pertinent to note that the injuries sustained by these witnesses
were not minor or superficial but were serious in nature and caused at the
hands of the assailants. While appreciating the evidence of these witnesses
the fact that these witnesses were injured in the assault cannot be ignored.
Similarly their presence at the time of the incident can not be disputed. P.W.
14 Dr. Waghmare examined Bajirao who was unconscious and was in coma
and found following external injuries on his body:
1. Head injury with compound fracture of the skull. It was on left
parietal prominance about 4 c.m. above the left pinna of ear. Size of
the injury anterior posteriorly was 2-4 inches. It was within 24 hours
and could have been caused by hard and blunt object like an iron bar
and stick.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
20
2. Contused lacerated wound on the left pinna, of ear, 1 x 1 cm. and
cartilage deep. (ii) 3 x 2 cms. lower part of injury no. (1) extending
from external meatus to the outer aspect of pinna. It was a fresh
injury, as a result of striking with hard and blunt object like a stick
and an iron bar.
3. There was a fracture of left radio ulna. It was a compound fracture.
There was a C.L.W. 2 x 3 cm. bone deep, 5 inches distal to left elbow.
Huge heamatoma around the fracture. Haematoma was about 5 x 5
cm. in diameter. This was also within 24 hours and could have been
caused by hard and blunt substance like a stick and an iron bar.
4. Injuries on back: There were 16 injuries on the back and 6 injuries on
thighs.
Dr. Waghmare also noticed the following internal injuries on the body of
deceased:
1. Fracture of the skull on left parietal prominance, 4 c.m. above the left
pinna of the ear, size 2.4 inches in length. Direction antero posterior.
2. Brain – It was highly congested, coverings, were reptured and
subdural haematoma of a large size was present.
The Medical Officer opined that the probable cause of death was result of
shock due to head injury with fractures (compound) of the skull and radio
ulna. He has also opined that the said injuries could have been caused by
weapon like iron bar, sticks.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
21
27. In the instant case ocular testimony of the eye witnesses those who
were injured in the assault is corroborated by the medical evidence and the
testimony of these witnesses being consistent with the material particulars
of the prosecution case, the trial court was justified in placing reliance on
their evidence.
28. In the instant case appellant Jayawant was convicted for the offence
of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly,
appellants Jayawant, Balu and Trimbak and other co-accused were also
convicted under sections 147, 148, 149, 447 and 325 of the Indian Penal
Code. In the instant case other seven appellants were permitted by this Court
to compound the offences and their appeal came to be disposed of
accordingly. However conviction with the aid of Sections 147, 148, 149 will
not be sustained. Conviction and sentence of appellant Jayawant for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is sustained.
Conviction and sentence of appellants Jayawant, Balu and Trimbak for the
offence under Sections 447 and 325 is sustained with the aid of Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the conviction and sentence of
appellants Jayawant and Balu for the offence under Sections 447, 323 of the
Indian Penal Code is sustained with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::
22
29. For the reasons stated herein above, criminal appeal suffers from lack
of merits. Same is dismissed.
(D. D. SINHA, J.)
(A. P. BHANGALE, J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:35:33 :::