Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1364 (BOM)

Asaram s/o Vithoba Tayade v. State of Maharashtra

2018-06-12

M.G.GIRATKAR, P.N.DESHMUKH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. The appellant/accused assails the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 73/2015 by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution against the appellant in short is as under: Before the incident, deceased Suman was doing labour work on Vazzar Dam for about last 810 years. The accused was also working on Vazzar Dam as watchman. Since then the accused started love affair with the deceased. He was visiting the house of the deceased. Some times he used to stay in the house of the deceased and used to take dinner. Since last 2 months prior to the incident accused was continuously visiting the house of the deceased. The husband of the deceased suspected the illicit relations of the accused therefore, he told the accused not to come to his house. Thereafter also, the accused was always talking with the wife of the complainant. 3. On 28.05.2015, deceased Suman had gone to Paratwada for labour work. At about 4.00 p.m., accused came to the village of complainant Mohifata Vazzar. He was sitting in front of the shop of Sahadeo. At about 6.00 p.m., the complainant was repairing TV antenna on the roof of his house. At about 6.30 p.m., wife of complainant Suman came by auto rickshaw. When she alighted from the auto rickshaw, accused started stabbing her by knife. Complainant husband of the deceased rushed there. Accused ran away from the spot of incident. Deceased died on the spot. 4. Complainant Ramchandra Bhaiya Shelokar went to Police Station, Paratwada and lodged the report. Police Inspector Akotkar reduced the report (Exh.12) into writing and registered crime (Exh.13). Thereafter, he went to the spot, prepared the spot panchanama, seized blood stained articles from the spot, prepared inquest panchanama, recorded statement of witnesses. Further investigation was handed over to PI Bobde. The accused was absconding. PI Bobde kept surveillance after obtaining mobile number of the accused. Accused is arrested from Dound, Pune. After arrest of accused, he had given confessional statement to show knife and as per his confessional statement, the knife was recovered. Seized properties were sent to Chemical Analyzer. Further investigation was handed over to PI Bobde. The accused was absconding. PI Bobde kept surveillance after obtaining mobile number of the accused. Accused is arrested from Dound, Pune. After arrest of accused, he had given confessional statement to show knife and as per his confessional statement, the knife was recovered. Seized properties were sent to Chemical Analyzer. After complete investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 5. Charge (Exh.7) was framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. The prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses. After hearing the prosecution defence, the accused came to be convicted as stated above. 6. Heard Mr. Daruwala, learned counsel appointed for the appellant. He has submitted that the evidence of Ramchandra Shelokar (PW1) and Pushpa Shelokar (PW2) are not reliable. Independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal be allowed, as prayed. Per contra, Mr. Ghurde, learned A.P.P. has pointed out the evidence of Ramchandra (PW1) and Pushpa (PW2) and submitted that their evidence is well corroborated by post mortem report, chemical analyzer's report, recovery of weapon from the accused, etc. There is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. The learned trial Court rightly convicted the accused. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Ramchandra (PW1) and Pushpa (PW2) are the eye witnesses of the incident. Ramchandra (PW1) is husband of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that his wife was working on Vazzar dam prior to 10 years. Since then accused started illicit relations with her. Accused was visiting to his house. He restrained him and had a suspicion that the accused had illicit relations with his wife. Despite his restraints, accused used to come to his wife in his absence and used to talk with his wife. 8. On 28.05.2015, he had gone to Paratwada for purchasing some grocery articles. His wife had gone to Paratwada for labour work. He returned from Paratwada at about 3.30 p.m. He was repairing antenna of TV on the terrace of his house. He saw accused in front of shop of Sahadeo. 8. On 28.05.2015, he had gone to Paratwada for purchasing some grocery articles. His wife had gone to Paratwada for labour work. He returned from Paratwada at about 3.30 p.m. He was repairing antenna of TV on the terrace of his house. He saw accused in front of shop of Sahadeo. At about 6.30 p.m. his wife returned from Paratwada in auto rickshaw. When his wife was coming to his house, that time accused came near her and assaulted her by weapon like knife. Accused assaulted on the neck, hands, backside, stomach, legs, etc. of the deceased. He rushed to the spot. Accused threatened him and rushed on his person with weapon. He shouted loudly thereafter accused ran away in the field. His wife died on the spot. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and lodged oral report (Exh.12). In cross-examination, nothing is brought on record to disbelieve his testimony. On the other hand, in the cross-examination, it is brought on record that the accused had illicit relations with his wife. He has denied material suggestions. 9. Pushpa (PW2), daughter of the deceased and complainant, has stated in her evidence that the accused was always visiting their house in absence of her father. Accused used to come in the morning as well as in the evening. On the day of incident, her mother had gone to Paratwada for labour work. Her father had also gone to Paratwada to purchase grocery. He returned at about 3.00 p.m. She saw the accused near the shop of Sahadeo. At about 6.30 p.m. her mother returned by auto rickshaw from Paratwada. Suddenly, she heard shouting of her mother. At that time, she was standing in the courtyard. She saw accused assaulting her mother by knife. Accused assaulted her mother with knife on her neck, stomach, legs, hands, etc. She herself and her father shouted loudly. Some persons gathered there. Accused ran away in the field. Her mother fell down and died on the spot. Nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve her version. 10. Evidence of Ramchandrda (PW1) and Pushpa (PW2) are corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Sayyad Arshad Latif (PW6) conducted post mortem and issued post mortem report (Exh.37). At the time of post mortem, he noticed about 11 injuries. The injuries were stab woulds on neck, stomach, hands, etc. As per the opinion of Dr. 10. Evidence of Ramchandrda (PW1) and Pushpa (PW2) are corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Sayyad Arshad Latif (PW6) conducted post mortem and issued post mortem report (Exh.37). At the time of post mortem, he noticed about 11 injuries. The injuries were stab woulds on neck, stomach, hands, etc. As per the opinion of Dr. Sayyad, the injuries at Sr. Nos. 1, 6, 10 and 11 are sufficient to cause death. 11. Ajay (PW3) and Ravi (PW4) are pancha witnesses on the recovery of weapon and clothes of the accused. Ajay (PW3) did not support the prosecution to some extent. Ravi (PW4) has stated that accused confessed to show the place where he had thrown the knife. Accused shown the spot near a well. He took out the knife from the garbage. The same was seized by police. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. Human blood was found on the knife. 12. From the time of incident, the accused was absconding. He was not traced and therefore PSI Girish Bobde (PW7) searched the accused. On the basis of the surveillance, location of the mobile of accused was traced and he contacted the mobile company and kept watch on the accused. Accused was located at Dound, District Pune. He was arrested at Dound, on 29.05.2015. Call Detail Reports (CDR) (Exh.48) of the mobile phone of the accused shown location of the accused at Dound. 13. The accused could not give any explanation about the presence of human blood on his clothes. He was absconding from the time of incident. The evidence of Ramchandra (PW1) and Pushpa (PW2) show that accused had illicit relations with the deceased. Her husband i.e. the complainant restrained him from coming to his house. As per the evidence of Ramchandra (PW1) and Pushpa (PW2), on the day of incident at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased returned from Paratwada. As soon as she alighted from the auto rickshaw, the accused started stabbing her. Accused stabbed the deceased by knife and caused about 11 injuries. Whatever deposed by these two witnesses about the injuries is duly corroborated by the post mortem report. There is no reason to disbelieve evidence of Ramchandra (PW1) and Pushpa (PW2). Their evidence cannot be discarded only because they are near relatives. 14. In the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. Whatever deposed by these two witnesses about the injuries is duly corroborated by the post mortem report. There is no reason to disbelieve evidence of Ramchandra (PW1) and Pushpa (PW2). Their evidence cannot be discarded only because they are near relatives. 14. In the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; reported in 2016 All SCR (Cri) 536, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, “Civilized people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. This handicap of investigating agency in discharging their duty, cannot be ignored. Entire case cannot be derailed on mere ground of absence of independent witness...” 15. Thus, the evidence of Ramchandra (PW1) and Pushpa (PW2) cannot be thrown out only because they are relatives. Their evidence is well corroborated by post mortem report, recovery of weapon from the accused, chemical analyzer's report, etc. It appears from the cross-examination that there is no dispute that the accused had illicit relations with the deceased. The accused mercilessly stabbed the deceased by inflicting 11 injuries by sharp weapon (knife). Intention of the accused was only to kill the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. 16. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. Record and proceedings be sent back. Professional charges of Mr. R.M. Daruwala, learned counsel appointed for the appellant are quantified at Rs.5,000/-.