PPD
1
APEAL.202-04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.202 OF 2004
1. Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble, ]
Age : 24 years, Occupation : Business, ]
2. Shri Vinod Namdeo Salve, ]
Age : 26 years, Occupation : Labourer, ]
Both Resident of : 611, Kasewadi ]
Zoppadpatti, Bhavanipeth, Pune.
ig ]
[Currently in Yeravada Jail] ] ..APPELLANTS.
[Orig. Accused Nos.1 & 2]
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ]
[at the instance of Khadak Police Station, ]
Pune] ]..RESPONDENT.
..........
Ms.Pranali Kakade, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State.
..........
CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND
A .R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE
ORDER : 07TH JUNE, 2011.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE
ORDER : 03RD AUGUST, 2011
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:35:40 :::
2
APEAL.202-04
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.R.JOSHI,J.) :
1. Heard rival arguments at length on this Appeal preferred by
the Appellants/original accused Nos.1 & 2. Both the appellants were
convicted in Sessions Case No.489 of 2002 vide order dated
30.12.2003 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
By the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No.489 of
2002 both the present appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 were convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life
and were directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment
of fine to suffer R.I. For six months each. In the said Sessions Case,
total six accused were tried. However, accused Nos.3 to 6 were
acquitted of all the charges. Admittedly, since date of arrest i.e. since
14.7.2002 both the appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 were in jail and as
such after the judgment and order of conviction they are still in jail
till date.
2. After the present Appeal was admitted vide order dated
29.3.2004, the application for bail was rejected by another Division
Bench and as such during pendency of the present Appeal, both the
appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 are in jail. Reportedly, there is no
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:40 :::
3
APEAL.202-04
Appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of remaining accused
Nos.3 to 6.
3. The case of the prosecution narrated in nutshell is as under :-
One Firoz Kallu Shaikh ( since deceased ) was residing at
Kasewadi, Bhawani Peth, Pune in the vicinity of the residence of one
girl by name Swati. Allegedly said Swati and deceased Firoz had love
affair. However, it was not approved by the present appellant No.1 /
accused No.1 Ganesh (brother-in-law of Swati) and her mother and
as such there were strained relations between the parties on account
of such love affair and in fact there were earlier threats given by the
present appellant No.1 / accused No.1 to the deceased and deceased
was reprimanded by accused No.1 and was threatened of dire
consequences of amputating his hands and legs. Apparently the love-
affair continued and as such it resulted in doing away with Firoz and
as such the incident occurred at the early hours of 11th July, 2002. On
the fateful day, deceased Firoz was sleeping on a hand-cart parked by
the roadside of the locality where he was staying. His another friend
namely Azij Shaikh ( PW-4 ) was also sleeping by his side. At that
early hours allegedly present appellants and their other associates –
total about 5-6 persons, gathered on the spot and started assaulting
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:40 :::
4
APEAL.202-04
the deceased Firoz by means of weapons like sattur, sword etc. The
attack on the deceased Firoz was rather severe inasmuch as he
sustained about 56 injuries on various parts of his body. However, he
did notice the presence of present appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 as
assailants along with other persons. He noticed appellant No.1 /
accused No.1 possessing a sattur and appellant No.2 / accused No.2
possessing a sharp-edged weapon and also noticed that they inflicted
blows on his person by the said weapons. He also noticed other
assailants however could not identify them. After the incident of
assault, all the assailants ran away from the spot. Due to commotion,
persons in the locality gathered on the spot and carried the deceased
Firoz in an auto-rickshaw to Kasewadi Police Outpost. Then the victim
was taken to Sasoon Hospital by the police. The Medical Officer of
Sasoon Hospital started treatment.
4. It is also the case of the prosecution that one API Dhananjay
Solankar (PW-10) was on the night-round at early hours of 11th July,
2002 and received information regarding assault on the victim at
Kasewadi locality and reached Kasewadi Outpost and learnt that the
injured had been referred to Sasoon Hospital for treatment. He
reached the Hospital and enquired with the Medical Officer and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:40 :::
5
APEAL.202-04
found that the injured Firoz was in a condition to give statement and
accordingly recorded the statement of the victim. Allegedly, in the
said statement, which is subsequently marked as Exhibit-67, names of
the present appellants were specifically mentioned. After recording of
the statement of the victim, endorsement of the attending Medical
Officer (PW-12) was taken and said statement was treated as First
Information Report. During the course of investigation, various
panchnamas were conducted including the spot panchnama, and
statements of various witnesses were recorded. While under medical
treatment, at about 11 a.m. or so the victim Firoz succumbed to the
injuries. Inquest panchnama was conducted and postmortem on the
dead body was conducted. Offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC was added in the chargsheet.
5. During the course of investigation, the appellants were
arrested. The clothes of the accused were taken charge of under
different panchnamas. Memorandum statement of the present
appellant No.1 / accused No.1 was recorded and in furtherance of the
same, weapon allegedly used by appellant No.1 / accused No.1 was
recovered under the panchnama. Seized muddemal articles and
weapons were sent for chemical analysis. On completion of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:40 :::
6
APEAL.202-04
investigation, chargesheet was filed against the six accused persons
including the present appellants.
6. Prior to appreciating the rival submissions, in order to
determine the points in controversy and to bring down the scope of
the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, certain factual
position as emerged from the prosecution evidence brought before the
trial Court, is as under :
[i]
All the alleged eye witnesses i.e. PW-4 Azij Shaikh, PW-5 Raju
Momin and PW-11 Rangnath Jadhav have turned hostile to the
case of the prosecution on the aspect of actual involvement of
the appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 in the assault on the
deceased Firoz.
[ii] The panch witnesses i.e. PW-1 Madhukar Shinde for spot
panchnama, PW-2 Ayub Shaikh for seizure of clothes of the
deceased, PW-6 Prafulla Jani for seizure of clothes of accused
and PW-8 Altaf Shaikh for memorandum panchnama & seizure
of weapon from accused No.1, had turned hostile to the case of
the prosecution.
[iii] PW-10 PSI Dhananjay Solankar recorded the statement of then
injured Firoz Shaikh, who was taking treatment in the hospital
and said statement Exhibit-67 was treated as FIR and said
statement is bearing endorsement of the then attending Doctor
PW-12 Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni who had examined injured Firoz
and found him conscious and oriented for giving his statement to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:40 :::
7
APEAL.202-04
the police.
[iv] Victim Firoz Shaik died in the hospital while taking treatment at
about 11:00 a.m. on 11.7.2002. His postmortem was conducted
by PW-13 Dr.Milind Wable and as much as 56 injuries mainly on
the hands, legs and other parts of the body, were found on the
dead body and many of the injuries were linear abrasions and
incised wounds. One of the injuries was chopped wound on the
right little finger. Most of the injuries were on the limbs. As such,
death of Firoz Shaikh was homicidal.
7.
Bearing in mind the above factual position, the arguments
advanced on behalf of the appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 are
required to be considered. Learned Counsel Ms.Pranali Kakade for the
appellants submitted that since the alleged eye witnesses turned
hostile, the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence and
mainly on the dying declaration of the victim which is at Exhibit-67. It
is submitted that the alleged dying declaration of victim Firoz Shaikh,
is unacceptable as there is no corroboration to his statement. To
further this argument, it is pointed out to us that the substantive
evidence of PW-7 Smt.Farida (mother of the victim) is required to be
scrutinized with care and caution inasmuch as she had improved on
her story than that given before the police. On this aspect it is
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:40 :::
8
APEAL.202-04
submitted on behalf of the appellants that PW-7 had given the names
of other accused also, as said names were told to her by her son Firoz
while taking treatment in the hospital. On this aspect, it is further
argued that the statement of Firoz Shaikh (Exhibit-67) does not
disclose the names of other assailants except the names of the present
appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2. It is further submitted that the
substantive evidence of PW-7 cannot be taken as a corroboration to
the dying declaration of victim. Lastly, it is argued that the names of
any of the accused persons including the present appellants were not
at all mentioned in the medical history given by the brother of the
deceased while admitting the victim Firoz Shaikh in the hospital. This
factual position can be established from the substantive evidence of
PW-12 Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni, further argued.
8. Counter to the above arguments, learned A.P.P. Mrs.A.S. Pai
brought our attention to the contents of Exhibit-67 – the detailed
statement of the victim recorded by PW-10 PSI Solankar. Learned
A.P.P. also placed reliance on the substantive evidence of PW-12
Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni and stated that there is corroboration by way of
substantive evidence of PW-12 to the contents of the dying
declaration. Apart from this, it is also argued that the dying
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:41 :::
9
APEAL.202-04
declaration if inspires confidence as to its authenticity, can alone be
taken into consideration for conviction of the accused persons if such
dying declaration implicate them beyond a reasonable doubt.
9. Considering the admitted factual position mentioned above
and considering the rival arguments, it is to be ascertained in the
present Appeal – as to whether the dying declaration (Exhibit-67)
can be accepted in order to implicate the present appellants / accused
Nos.1 & 2 in the offence of murder. In order to answer this point, it is
to be seen whether the authenticity of the dying declaration of the
victim i.e. Exhibit-67 is established and for this purpose the
substantive evidence of PW-10 Dhananjay Solankar and that of PW-12
Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni is required to be scrutinized.
10. Firstly, coming to the substantive evidence of PW-10 PSI
Dhananjay Solankar, it must be said that on the fateful night he was
on the night-duty and received information that one person is
assaulted at Kasewadi and as such he reached Kasewadi Outpost at
about 3:00 a.m. on 11.7.2002 and revealed that injured had been
referred to Sasoon Hospital. Accordingly, he reached the Sasoon
Hospital and met the attending Doctor and came to know the name
of the injured as – Firoz Kallu Shaikh. From the Medical Officer, he
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:41 :::
10
APEAL.202-04
came to know that the injured was taking treatment in Ward. Sensing
the emergency of the hour, he told the Medical Officer that he wanted
to record the statement of the injured and requested him to ascertain
the condition of the patient as to whether patient was in a position to
give the statement or not. On this the Medical Officer (PW-12)
examined the injured and found that the said injured was in a
position to give the statement. Apparently, at that time the relatives of
the injured were not present in the Ward. According to PW-10, Firoz
Shaikh narrated the entire incident inasmuch as on 11.7.2002 he was
sleeping on the four-wheel cart in front of the house of his maternal-
uncle. His friend was with him. At about 3:00 to 3:30 a.m. he was
awakened by the fall of his friend on the ground. That time he
realized that blood was coming out of his ear and he put hand on his
ear. He also noticed presence of present appellants / accused Nos.1 &
2 armed with weapons and inflicting the injuries on his person. He
noticed that Sattur was in the hand of appellant No.1 / accused No.1
and one sharp-edged weapon was in the hand of appellant No.2 /
accused No.2. He also noticed some other persons, but, could not
identify them. According to PW-10 this was the statement given by
the victim – Firoz Shaikh. As both the hands of Firoz Shaikh were
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:41 :::
11
APEAL.202-04
bandaged, his left leg thumb impression was obtained on the
statement. So also, the endorsement of the attending Doctor PW-12
Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni was obtained. Said endorsement reads as
“patient is conscious and oriented”. The said endorsement is signed
by PW-12 Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni. Now after going through the
substantive evidence of PW-12 Dr.Kaustub Kulkarni, it must be said
that his evidence is corroborating the evidence of PW-10 as to
recording of the statement and more specifically as to the condition of
the injured Firoz Shaikh who was fit to give his statement. It is an
admitted position that history given by the patient and his brother
was of assault at home at Kasewadi, Bhavani Peth, Pune and assault
by sharp and blunt object. On initial examination of the victim, it was
found that he was bleeding from both the ears, but, there was no
history of unconsciousness or vomiting or convulsions. The
substantive evidence of PW-12 shows that he examined the patient,
his general condition was stable, he was fully conscious and oriented,
and his pupils were normal. In para-6 further substantive evidence of
PW-12 shows that he was present at the time of recording the
statement of the injured Firoz Kallu Shaikh on 11.7.2002 in Ward
No.12 in Sasoon Hospital. Prior to recording the statement the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:41 :::
12
APEAL.202-04
concerned police officer had approached him and asked him whether
the patient is in a state to give the statement or not. He then
examined the patient and came to the conclusion that the patient is
fully conscious and oriented to give the statement. Thereafter the
concerned police officer started recording the statement of the
patient. After recording the statement he made endorsement under
his signature that the patient is conscious and oriented. It bears his
endorsement under his signature.
11. Considering the import of the substantive evidence of PW-10
and PW-12, as detailed above, in our considered opinion, said
evidence of dying declaration is to be accepted wherein the names of
the present appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 are stated and also stated
about specific roles played by them as well as weapons used.
12. Bearing in mind this substantive evidence, the evidence of
PW-7 Farida Shaikh (mother of the victim) can be scrutinized. In her
substantive evidence PW-7 mentioned that on the relevant night,
Firoz was sleeping on the four-wheel cart of Aziz. At about 3:30 a.m.
Rangnath Jadhav came to her house and knocked the door. He told
that Firoz was assaulted by Ganesh Kamble, Vinod and Dhanraj More
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:41 :::
13
APEAL.202-04
and another boy by name Ganesh. Further, the substantive evidence
of PW-7 is reproduced verbatim, as appearing in para-2 of her
evidence, which reads as under :-
” …. I rushed there by running and noticed Firoz in
the pool of blood. My son told me that he is assaulted
by Ganesh and 5 to 6 boys. In the hospital also my
son told me the names of Ganesh Kamble, DhanrajYadaade, Ambadas More, and another Ganesh, Bapu
Londhe. I recognize the said boys. (The witness haspointed out the accused who were sitting in the court
and stated that these are the same boys).”
13. Much is argued on behalf of the appellants on the above
substantive evidence of PW-7 Farida Shaikh (mother of the victim)
and it was pointed out that the said witness had improved upon her
statement inasmuch as she has taken the name of other accused
persons apart from the name of accused No.1, however, she had not
taken the name of accused No.2. Much emphasis was placed on the
substantive evidence of PW-7 that she knew regarding the assault
from Rangnath Jadhav (PW-11). It is an admitted position that said
PW-11 Rangnath Jadhav did not support the case of the prosecution
regarding any assault and narrating about it to PW-7. By pointing out
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:41 :::
14
APEAL.202-04
this position, it is further argued that this is hearsay and hence not
acceptable. There is no dispute regarding this factual position as
argued on behalf of the appellants. Moreover, it is apparent from the
substantive evidence of PW-10 that only the names of present
appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 were narrated by the victim while
giving his statement. However, according to PW-7 her son (victim
Firoz Shaikh) had given the names of other persons also. This
discrepancy is much highlighted by Miss.Pranali Kakade- the learned
Counsel for the appellants, and it is submitted that on this count itself
the substantive evidence of PW-7 is not acceptable. It is further
argued that in the police statement PW-7 did not mention that she
knew the names of the assailants through her son. According to
learned Counsel for the Appellants this is the omission and which is
material rendering the evidence of PW-7 unacceptable. This omission
has not been proved by the defence by putting questions to the
Investigating Officer. In that event, the argument on behalf of the
appellants / accused cannot be accepted. All the same, considering
arguments and the evidence of PW-7 not corroborating the case of the
prosecution as to the contents of the statement of the victim, in our
opinion there is sufficient corroboration to such statement by way of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:41 :::
15
APEAL.202-04
substantive evidence of Medical Officer PW-12. In our view,
consequently the contents of the said statement Exhibit-67 can safely
be relied upon and corroborated by the evidence of PW-12 which
implicate the appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offence of
murder of Firoz.
14. Needless to mention that for establishing a guilt of an
accused person, the nature of evidence must be sufficient to prove
case of the prosecution against the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt. In the case in hand even though all the eye witnesses and also
the panchas were declared hostile, the remaining evidence is
sufficient to hold the appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 guilty of the
offence of murder. It is not fatal to the prosecution that the names of
the assailants are not mentioned in the admission-papers when the
victim was brought to the hospital for emergency treatment.
15. Needless to mention that dying declaration if truthful,
reliable and trustworthy conviction can be based on this sole evidence
without there being any corroboration from other source, however,
rule of prudence is to seek corroboration. The victim and the
appellants were knowing each other. There was love affair between
PW-3 Swati and the victim, and it was not liked by appellant No.1 /
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:35:41 :::
16
APEAL.202-04
accused No.1 and his other relatives. As such, considering these
circumstances, in our view there is nothing to doubt involvement of
the appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 in the offence of murder.
16. In the result, there is no merit in the present Appeal and the
same is accordingly disposed of with following order :-
:: O R D E R ::
i. Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2004 stands dismissed.
ig (D. D. SINHA, J.)
(A. R. JOSHI, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:35:41 :::
