Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1764 (BOM)

PRABHAKAR BHIKU REWALE v. State of Maharashtra

2006-11-06

NISHITA MHATRE, V.G.PALSHIKAR

body2006
ORAL JUDGMENT V. G. PALSHIKAR, J. :- Being aggrieved by the order dated 14-8-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2002 convicting the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life, the accused has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 2. With the assistance of the advocates for the parties, we have gone through the entire record. We have reappreciated the documentary and oral evidence on record. On reappreciation, the prosecution's story as disclosed by evidence is as under: The accused Prabhakar Revale and the victim Umesh Shevade were working with PWI Vinayak on his poultry farm. Apart from being paid wages, they were also given free meals by the employer. On 8-6-2001 after taking their night meals, the accused and the victim were supposed to go to the poultry farm and the accused was not willing to go and therefore there was verbal exchange between the two and the victim slapped the accused twice or thrice on the back which annoyed the accused very much. But they left for the poultry farm. In the morning of 9-6-2006, the accused came to the house of the complainant and informed him that he has finished Umesh, the victim. His clothes were stained with blood. Therefore, a report was lodged by the complainant PWI before the police. He has proved that report. On the basis of this report, investigation was conducted, the accused was arrested and on completion of the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence on record came to the conclusion of guilt and consistent with the conclusion sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal. 3. As we have already noted above, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in this case to prove the guilt of the accused. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence as indicated above, convicted the accused. PW1, Vinayak, is the complainant and employer of the accused and the victim. He has deposed before the Court how the incident occurred and he has disclosed all material facts necessary for disclosing the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence as indicated above, convicted the accused. PW1, Vinayak, is the complainant and employer of the accused and the victim. He has deposed before the Court how the incident occurred and he has disclosed all material facts necessary for disclosing the case of the prosecution. He has stated that in the night of 8-6-2001 at about 9.30 p.m. his family members including the accused and the victim took meals and were supposed to go for sleeping to the poultry farm. The accused, however, was not willing to go and therefore, there was verbal exchange between the two. The victim gave 2 - 3 slaps on the back of the accused who got irritated and threatened the victim but then left to sleep at the poultry farm. In the morning at around 7.30 a.m. on 9-62001, the accused came to the house of the complainant. He was in a frightened condition and he informed the complainant that he has finished (killed) Umesh, the victim. He also told the complainant that he had assaulted the victim with a stick and pickaxe. The pickaxe later on was recovered at the instance of the accused. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to suggest that he has not disclosed the entire prosecution case truthfully in the Court. This evidence is duly corroborated by his wife whose presence in the house and around the vicinity was natural. She has also stated in her deposition as PW2 that on 8-6-2001, after taking meals in the night, the accused was not willing to go to the poultry farm and therefore, there was verbal exchange between the accused and the victim. The victim slapped the accused on his back and the accused was annoyed. Therefore, he threatened the victim but then went with the victim to the poultry farm. In the morning, he came to the house of the complainant PW 1 and told the complainant in the presence of this witness that he has killed the accused. There is, thus, total corroboration to the testimony of PW 1 by a person who is a natural witness and was naturally present both when the meals were taken in the night and the report regarding his killing was made in the morning. There is, thus, total corroboration to the testimony of PW 1 by a person who is a natural witness and was naturally present both when the meals were taken in the night and the report regarding his killing was made in the morning. The entire cross-examination of this witness discloses that she has not deposed anything in her cross-examination which will militate against her version of the incident disclosed in the examination-in-chief. The translation of the deposition in English is misleading and wrong. In the original version recorded in Marathi, the witness has clearly denied the suggestion that there was no quarrel on the previous night between the accused and the victim. The translation depicts exactly the contrary. However, a scrutiny of the original deposition in Marathi dispels any doubt regarding the correctness of the deposition of PW2. 4. These verbal statements of the witnesses who were naturally present at the place is further corroborated by the recovery of the weapons used at the instance of the accused. The disclosure by the accused to these persons i.e., PW1 and PW2 is also in the circumstances natural. That he was annoyed is proved. That he has used the pickaxe is proved. The injuries caused on the body of the victim are also proved and they match to the description given by the witnesses in relation to the narration made by the accused to them in the morning of 9-62001. Though there is no eye witness account in this case, the testimony of two witnesses duly corroborated by documentary evidence in the shape of recovery panchanama proves beyond doubt that the accused was the person who caused homicidal death on the victim. The order of conviction as recorded by the trial Judge is proper. The appreciation of the evidence on record is correct. He has not committed any error of law in coming to the conclusion of guilt. We are in total agreement of the findings recorded by the trial Judge. In our opinion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.