Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 909 (BOM)

Sopan Nivrutti Suradkar v. State of Maharashtra

2007-07-06

C.L.PANGARKAR

body2007
JUDGMENT The accused who was convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 10 years has preferred this appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as under: On 5-4-1999 Devkabai had gone along with the son Vasudeo, to the house of one Namdeo Vithoba in the morning around 10 a.m.. While she was at the house of Namdeo the accused came there. He said to Deokabai as to why she had abused his parents-in-law and why she said that his wife was unchaste. He gave threats to Deokabai. Later Deokabai came home, she narrated the incident to her husband. Her husband went to persuade the accused not to do anything. In the meanwhile Deokabai also came out of the house in search of her husband and her son Sudhakar. It is alleged that on her way the accused accosted both of them. Accused seeing Deokabai assaulted her with an axe in his hand. He dealt two blows on the chest of Deokabai and also on the hand. Banabai whose house is close-by came running there to ' save Deokabai. She prevented the accused from dealing further blows. She was brought with the help of one Jagdeo who was watching the incident in the courtyard. Banabai wrapped the wounds on the person of Deokabai. Deokabai was later removed to the hospital. Jagdeo Paraskar lodged the report with the police. Police registered the offence, arrested the accused. Accused was interrogated. He agreed to discover an axe which he had kept at his house. Accordingly he discovered the axe which was seized by the police. The police had also seized clothes on the person of Deokabai and drawn spot panchanama. Upon completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class. Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions framed charges. Accused pleaded not guilty. Upon consideration of the evidence Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of offence under Section 307. Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- Being aggrieved by that this appeal is preferred. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State and also perused the record. 4. Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- Being aggrieved by that this appeal is preferred. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State and also perused the record. 4. The prosecution has examined only 6 witnesses, P.W. 1 Jagdeo is an eyewitness, while P.W.4 Deokabai is the victim of the crime, P.W.2 Anil Mahadeo is Panch on the memorandum and the seizure. P.W. 3 Dr. Nilesh is Medical Officer, P.W. 5 Gajanan Namdeo is a Panch on the spot panchanama and P.W. 6 Sachindra Bhaurao Shinde is Investigating Officer. 5. P.W. 4 Deokabai has deposed that accused is son of her husband's sister. She states that she had gone to the house of Namdeo Vithoba when accused came and said to her that she had abused his parents-in-law and suspected the fidelity of his wife. She states that saying so he abused her and threatened to kill her. He had stone in his hand at the time. It is further stated by her that Shrikant son of Namdeo took the stone from the accused and took him to his house. It is in her evidence further that she went home later and when her husband came she narrated the incident to him. It is also in her evidence that he husband and son went out and she also followed after some time but did not find them. It is also stated by PW. 4 Deokabai that while she was returning home the accused came from the open space behind the house of Banabai and asked them to stop and when they stopped accused caught hands of her son Wasudeo and said that he will kill her husband and son Sudhakar. She stated that when she tried to save her son Wasudeo, accused inflicted blows with axe on left side of her chest and left elbow. She also states that thereafter the accused ran away. Banabai came and accosted the accused. She further states that Banabai and Jagdeo brought her to the courtyard. Her wound was wrapped and she was taken to the hospital. There appears omissions with regard to coming to the house of Namdeo and her son coming with her to the house of Namdeo. Banabai came and accosted the accused. She further states that Banabai and Jagdeo brought her to the courtyard. Her wound was wrapped and she was taken to the hospital. There appears omissions with regard to coming to the house of Namdeo and her son coming with her to the house of Namdeo. There is also an omission about the accused giving threats to her at the house of Namdeo. These omissions can just be ignored. They are not such as to affect the varacity of P.W. 4 Deokabai. It is suggested to P.W. 4 that she wanted accused to marry a person from her maternal uncle's village and the accused had refused and that, therefore, there is enmity. The suggestion has been denied by the witness. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the witness to discredit her. It is in fact stated by P.W. 4 Deokabai that she had attended the marriage of the accused which took place just two months prior to the incident. It may be observed here that as far as actual incident of assault is concerned there is virtually no cross-examination of the witness. It is simply suggested to the witness that on way to the field she fell down and suffered injuries. This simple suggestion has been denied and cannot carry any weight. This suggestion cannot carry any weight for the reason that such a suggestion is not given to P.W. 3 Dr. Anil nor is such suggestion given to even P.W. 1 Jagdeo. Accused, therefore, has certainly failed to explain the injuries on the person of Deokabai. 6. Her evidence is corroborated fully by P.W. 1 Jagdeo. This Jagdeo had lodged the report with the police and has given a graphic description of the incident which took place. It is only suggested to P.W. 1 that he is relative of Deokabai and therefore telling lie. He has denied the suggestion and even Deokabai has denied suggestion that Jagdeo is her relative. Assuming that he is related to Deokabai that it self cannot be a ground to reject his testimony. It is not elicited why he is inimically disposed against the accused. If Jagdeo is related to Deokabai then he can be said to be related even to the accused because Deokabai says that accused is son of her husband's sister. Assuming that he is related to Deokabai that it self cannot be a ground to reject his testimony. It is not elicited why he is inimically disposed against the accused. If Jagdeo is related to Deokabai then he can be said to be related even to the accused because Deokabai says that accused is son of her husband's sister. Since immediately after the incident the report is lodged and even P.W. 4 Deokabai states that Jagdeo was present, the evidence of P.W. 1 Jagdeo cannot be discarded. In fact his testimony is again corroborated by the contents of F.I.R. Ex.30. 7. The evidence of the Medical Officer P.W. 3 Dr. Nilesh also corroborates the version of the victim that the accused had dealt blows of axe on her chest and hand During the course of examination Dr. Nilesh states upon showing axe in the Court that such injuries could be caused by the axe the only question put to the Medical Officer in cross-examination is whether he had measured the depth of the injury. He states that since the injuries had gone upto the lungs he did not measure them. This answer clearly goes to show that injuries were quite deep. 8. P.W. 2 Anil has stated that accused was in custody of the police and he had volunteered to discover the axe kept in his house. He states that accused led them to the house and took out an axe from the box. He also states that memorandum to that effect was drawn and panchanama also drawn of the seizure of the axe. If the cross-examination of this witness is seen it is clear that he was able to tell the exact date on which he had gone to the police station and exact time when the statement of the accused was recorded by the police. He was even able to tell the dimensions of the house of the accused. It is not elicited from the witness as to why this witness is also enimically disposed against the accused. If the witness has no axe to grind against the accused there is no reason why he should come and deliberately tell lie before the Court. I do not find any reason to discard his evidence. 9. Report of the Chemical Analyser is filed at Ex.52. It shows that the axe had blood stains so too the clothes of Deokabai. If the witness has no axe to grind against the accused there is no reason why he should come and deliberately tell lie before the Court. I do not find any reason to discard his evidence. 9. Report of the Chemical Analyser is filed at Ex.52. It shows that the axe had blood stains so too the clothes of Deokabai. On both, the blood was found and it was of Group 'A'. This also corroborates the version of the victim. There is therefore enough of evidence to hold that the accused was the author of the injuries. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the accused had no intention to kill. He submitted that the accused caught hold of son Wasudeo and Deokabai intervened and sustained injuries. The argument has no force. Accused had dealt three blows, i.e. two on the chest and one on the hand. The fact that three blows were dealt with and three injuries were sustained, the possibility of the injured having sustained in scuffle has to be ruled out. The fact that the accused dealt three blows one after the other and that too with an axe is enough to attribute intention as well as knowledge to the accused. P.W. 3 Dr. Nilesh has clearly stated that injuries on the chest were in the ordinary course of nature sufficient to cause death. Since the injuries were deep and had gone upto the lungs the opinion of the Medical Officer that they would have caused the death has to be accepted. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly held the accused guilty of offence under Section 307. 11. Learned counsel submitted that the accused is Young boy of 28 years of age and was married just two months prior to the incident as is admitted by P.W. 4 Deokabai. He submitted that accused is in jail since then. He also contended that since Deokabai had doubted chastity of the wife of the accused he might have got enraged. He also submitted that, therefore, this Court may take into consideration this mitigating circumstances and take a lenient view and reduce the imprisonment to 5 years. Accused is a young boy married just two months prior to the incident and could have got enraged due to his wife being branded as unchaste. It is quite natural. He also submitted that, therefore, this Court may take into consideration this mitigating circumstances and take a lenient view and reduce the imprisonment to 5 years. Accused is a young boy married just two months prior to the incident and could have got enraged due to his wife being branded as unchaste. It is quite natural. Considering this aspect I find that sentence of 10 years R.I. is too harsh. To my mind it should be reduced to 6 years and that would meet the ends of justice. Hence the appeal partly succeeds. Conviction of the accused under Section 307 is confirmed. Accused shall undergo R.I. for a period of 6 years instead of 10 years. The sentence of fine also stands confirmed. Appeal partly allowed.