Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2444 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Sarajerao Dnyanu Khot

2013-11-29

P.N.DESHMUKH, P.V.HARDAS

body2013
JUDGMENT P.V. HARDAS, J. The appellant - State, being aggrieved by the judgment of the II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur dated 18/8/2005, in Sessions Case No. 168 of 2001, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 307, 342, 326 read with 149 and 148 of the IPC, by this appeal questions the correctness of their acquittal. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:- PW 11 – ASI Anandrao Bhakare, who, on 28/10/2000, was attached to the Shahuwadi Police Station, recorded the report of PW 7 Uday at Exh. 61. On the basis of the report/complaint of PW 7 - Uday, he registered an offence vide Crime No. 124 of 2000. He thereafter handed over the investigation to P-1 Sakhund. PW 11 - ASI Bhakare recorded the statements of the injured and also statement of PW 8 - Narayan in the CPR Hospital at Kolhapur. PW 15 - PI Arjuna Sakhund, who was attached to the Shahuwadi Police Station was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No. 124 of 2000 on 28/10/2000. He was also entrusted with investigation of Crime No. 123 of 2000, which was lodged by the present respondents against the complainant and the other injured witnesses. Accordingly, the scene of the incident panchanama was drawn and is at Exh. 101. He recorded the statements of witnesses and on 31/10/2000 arrested accused - Sarjerao, accused - Pandit, accused - Vijay, accused - Dagdu under arrest panchanama. The clothes on the person of the accused were seized at Exh. 102. During custodial information, accused - Sarjerao expressed his willingness to point out the place, where a rifle had been concealed by him. Accordingly, the memorandum was recorded in the presence of panchas at Exh. 51 and the rifle came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh. 52. On 1/11/2000 statements of other witnesses were recorded. The accused were referred to the Medical Officer for obtaining the blood samples under requisition at Exh. 103. On 10/11/2000, the jeep belonging to accused was seized in the presence of panchas under seizure memo at Exh. 104. The seized property was referred to the Chemical Analyzer on 25/11/2000 under requisition at Exh. 105. The blood sample of the other accused was also drawn by referring the accused to the Medical Officer under requisition at Exh. 106. 103. On 10/11/2000, the jeep belonging to accused was seized in the presence of panchas under seizure memo at Exh. 104. The seized property was referred to the Chemical Analyzer on 25/11/2000 under requisition at Exh. 105. The blood sample of the other accused was also drawn by referring the accused to the Medical Officer under requisition at Exh. 106. Further to the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused was submitted. The injured were examined by PW 14 – Dr. Ghatge, PW 14 – Dr. Ghatge examined injured Narayan and noticed a contused lacerated wound on parietal region 6x2x1/2 cm. He also noticed contused on the right leg. He noticed fracture of the right proximal fibula. The injury certificate of Narayan is at Exh. 91. He had also examined Darasingh and had noticed 8 injuries, which are referred to in the certificate at Exh. 92. He had also examined injured Babasaheb who had sustained 5 injuries, which are reflected in the certificate at Exh. 94. Sarjerao was examined and he had found to sustained one simple injury, which is reflected in the certificate at Exh. 95. He had also examined accused – Pandit, who had sustained 5 injuries, out of which Injury No.1 was grievous injury. Certificate is at Exh. 96. Injure Nivrutti had sustained two injuries, out of which Injury No. 1 was a grievous injury. The medical certificate is at Exh. 97. Rangrao Khot who had died in the incident and in respect of whose death the present complainant and the witnesses were prosecuted was found to have sustained a bullet injury and the same is reflected in the postmortem report at Exh. 98. 3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh. 22 framed charge against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 148, 342 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 326 read with 149 of the IPC. Prosecution, in support of its case, had examined 15 witnesses. The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the respondents - accused. The present appeal, therefore, has been filed by the State questioning the acquittal of the respondents. 4. With the assistance of the learned APP and the learned counsel representing the respondents-accused, we have perused the testimonies of the witnesses. In respect of the evidence of the disclosure statement of accused no. The present appeal, therefore, has been filed by the State questioning the acquittal of the respondents. 4. With the assistance of the learned APP and the learned counsel representing the respondents-accused, we have perused the testimonies of the witnesses. In respect of the evidence of the disclosure statement of accused no. 1 relating to the seizure of the rifle under seizure memo at Exh. 52, the trial court came to the conclusion that the said evidence did not assist the prosecution as the rifle was found where it was usually kept and there were no allegations that the rifle had been used in the offence as no one had been injured on account of gunshot. The trial court, therefore, at paragraph 8, came to the conclusion that no reliance could be placed on the aforesaid circumstance. 5. In respect of the evidence of PW 7 - Uday, the trial court found that PW 7 Uday had deposed that deceased Rangrao had fired two bullets from the gun and, therefore, the complainant party started running. The accused had, meanwhile, assaulted his father by fist and kicks. Uday has admitted that his complaint was recorded on the next day, though he had gone and narrated the incident at the police station on the previous day. In cross-examination, he has denied to have stated portion marked "A" to "L" in his report and the trial court has observed that he has virtually denied the entire complaint. The trial court further observed, at paragraph 14 that the testimony of PW 7 - Uday was riddle with contradictions and omissions and had put-forth an entirely new case in his evidence. Uday had also admitted that he was being prosecuted in three criminal cases. In a counter case, it was alleged that Uday had shot deceased Rangrao in the same incident. Trial court, at paragraph 16, observed that there was delay of more than 30 hours in lodging of the report and the report, on the basis of which the accused were being prosecuted, had obviously been lodged after the accused had lodged the report against PW 7 - Uday and others. The trial court concluded at paragraph 18 that the explanation for delay was being offered for the first time in court by PW-7 - Uday. The trial court concluded at paragraph 18 that the explanation for delay was being offered for the first time in court by PW-7 - Uday. The trial court further observed that PW 7 - Uday had departed from the recitals of his report and had put-forth an entirely new case. The trial court, therefore, found that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of PW 7 - Uday. 6. In respect of the evidence of PW 8 - Narayan, an injured witness, the trial court found that the evidence of PW 8 Narayan that he was assaulted by Rangrao and accused Pandit and accused Vijay resulting in fracture of both legs, was not believable. The trial court observed that in the cross-examination several contradictions and omissions were brought on record by which PW 8 - Narayan suppressed the overt-acts of his sons. The trial court observed that Narayan along with his sons and nephews was being prosecuted in Sessions Case No. 166 of 2001 for having caused death of deceased Rangrao. The trial court, therefore, came to the conclusion at paragraph 21 of the judgment that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of Narayan. 7. In respect of the evidence of PW 9 - Darasingh, the trial court came to the conclusion that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of this witness. His statement was recorded during investigation on 31/10/2000. The trial court observed, at paragraph 32, that as per the contradictions and omissions in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his deposition, it was clear that PW 9 - Darasingh was not speaking the truth. The trial court, therefore, chose not to place any reliance on his evidence. 8. In respect of the evidence of PW 10 - Babaso, also an injured witness, the trial court found that his statement had been belatedly recorded on 2/11/2000 and by virtue of the contractions, which were brought on record at paragraph 5 of his deposition, no reliance could be placed on his testimony. Additionally, the trial court found that he was related to the complainant and PW 8 - Narayan was his uncle. The trial court further came to the conclusion that in the light of the fact that the accused had also sustained injuries, implicit reliance could not be placed on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the accused causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses. The trial court further came to the conclusion that in the light of the fact that the accused had also sustained injuries, implicit reliance could not be placed on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the accused causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses. In other words, the trial court came to the conclusion that implicit reliance, regarding the manner in which the incident occurred, could not be placed on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court, therefore, gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them. 9. With the assistance of the learned APP, we have examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and we have also examined the findings recorded by the trial court. The view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. 10. The appeal against acquittal, therefore, fails and is dismissed, confirming the acquittal of the respondents. Appeal dismissed.