Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 276 (BOM)

Bhikaji v. State Of Maharashtra

2019-01-30

P.N DESHMUKH, ROHIT B.DEO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rohit B. Deo, J. The appellants and twelve others were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 143, 147, 148, 504, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. By judgment dated 31.10.2015 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Link Court), Mehkar in Sessions Trial 62/2013, the appellants accused 1 and accused 2 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/each and for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to payment of fine of Rs. 500/each. The other twelve accused are acquitted of all the offences. 2. The deceased Madhukar Marotrao Ugalmugle whose death the accused are alleged to have caused by assault with danger weapons was the Police Patil of village Khandala, District Buldhana. Madhukar had two sons Samadhan and Bharat and two daughters Shila and Sunita. Shila married accused 5 Gajanan two years prior to the incident. In the elections to the village panchayat Madhukar supported the group opposing accused 6 Badrinath. This resulted in bad blood between Madhukar and Badrinath and Badrinath instigated accused Gajanan to abandon Shila who was compelled to reside with Madhukar. On 20.3.2013 Shila lodged a report against accused Gajanan and her inlaws at the Lonar Police Station and returned to village Khandala at 745 p.m. or thereabout, along with her father Madhukar and brother Samadhan. Shila, Madhukar and Samadhan were proceeding towards their house when the accused accosted them in front of the residence of Bhagwan Ugalmugle. The accused abused Madhukar on the issue of aligning with the rival group in the village panchayat elections. The appellants accused Bhikaji and Santosh assaulted Madhukar with iron rods. Accused Sounda inflicted stick blows and accused Gajanan, Badrinath and Sunil assaulted Madhukar with stones. Bharat and Samadhan intervened in an attempt to rescue Madhukar. Accused Sounda dealt a stick blow on Bharat's right shoulder and accused Santosh inflicted iron rod blows on Samadhan's head and hand. Ganesh Ugalmugle who rushed to the scene was assaulted by accused Vitthal with stick and the other accused were abusing and instigating the assailants. Bharat and Samadhan intervened in an attempt to rescue Madhukar. Accused Sounda dealt a stick blow on Bharat's right shoulder and accused Santosh inflicted iron rod blows on Samadhan's head and hand. Ganesh Ugalmugle who rushed to the scene was assaulted by accused Vitthal with stick and the other accused were abusing and instigating the assailants. Raju Ugalmugle, Atmaram Ugalmugle, Ravindra Ugalmugle and Bhaskar Ugalmugle rescued Madhukar who was taken to Rural Hospital Bibi where he was declared dead. Bharat lodged report of the incident at the Lonar Police Station pursuant to which offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act were registered vide Crime 53/2013. Police Inspector Yashwant Baviskar, who investigated the crime, arrested accused Bhikaji, accused Eknath, accused Shivram, accused Vitthal, accused Jalindhar, accused Ankush and accused Pandurang in the night of 20.3.2013. The Investigating Officer went to the Rural Hospital Bibi and prepared the inquest panchanama. The next day the Investigating Officer prepared the spot panchanama. Two blood stained stones were seized. Blood stains were noticed on the tar road. The Investigating Officer sent the dead body to Rural Hospital, Mehkar for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. Dhananjay Satpute. Accused Shivaji was arrested on 21.3.2013, appellant accused Santosh and accused Sounda were arrested on 22.3.2013 and their blood stained clothes were seized. Two iron rods and a wooden rafter were recovered on 23.3.2013 pursuant to disclosure statement made by accused Bhikaji, Santosh and Sounda and axe shaft was recovered at the instance of accused Vitthal on 23.4.2013. Accused Gajanan was arrested on 02.4.2013, accused Rajeshwar was arrested on 08.4.2013 and accused Badrinath and Sunil surrendered on 12.4.2013. The sketch of the crime spot was prepared, the seized weapons were sent to the Medical Officer and opinion obtained on the possibility of the injuries found on the body of Madhukar being caused by the weapons seized. The statements of witnesses were recorded and upon completion of investigation the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lonar, who committed the proceeding to the Sessions Court. The trial Court framed charge (Exhibit 29) against accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Station. The trial Court framed charge (Exhibit 29) against accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Station. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. The defence of the accused, as is discernible from the text and tenor of the cross examination and the statements recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is of total denial and false implication. 3. The conviction of the appellants accused Bhikaji Nagare and Santosh Nagare is substantially predicated on the testimonies of PW 1 Bharat Ugalmugle, PW2 Samadhan Ugalmugle and PW 3Shila Nagare, who are examined as eyewitnesses to the incident. Corroboration is sought from the medical evidence on record, the recoveries and the chemical analysis report. PW 4 Ganesh and PW 6 Atmaram were also touted as eyewitnesses. However, the trial Court recorded a finding that PW 4 Ganesh and PW 6 Atmaram did not witness the actual assault on deceased Madhukar. The trial Court, however, held that the testimonies of PW 4 Ganesh and PW 6 Atmaram further the prosecution case to the limited extent of proving that accused 1 to 7 were present on the spot of the incident immediately after the assault. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Mardikar for the appellants accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J.Y. Ghurde for the respondent State at length. With the able assistance of the learned Counsel, we have scrutinized the material on record and the reasons recorded by the trial Court. 5. During the course of the trial, the defence did suggest as is revealed from the text and tenor of the cross examination, that the death of Madhukar was accidental and the fatal injury could have been caused due to a fall on the tar road. In fairness to the learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Mardikar, it was not seriously disputed before us that the death is homicidal. We have closely scrutinized the evidence of PW 10 Dr. Satpute, who conducted the autopsy and proved the postmortem report Exhibit 111 and the ocular evidence, and having done so, we see no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial Court that the death of Madhukar was not accidental. Two external injuries were noticed on the body of Madhukar by Dr. Satpute, who conducted the autopsy and proved the postmortem report Exhibit 111 and the ocular evidence, and having done so, we see no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial Court that the death of Madhukar was not accidental. Two external injuries were noticed on the body of Madhukar by Dr. Satpute. Injury I was laceration over upper lip, extending to lower lip, measuring 3cm. X 0.5 cm., along with fall of two incise teeth; age of the injury was 12 to 18 hours and was probably caused by blunt object with hard force. Injury 2 was lacerated wound over the occipital region, which was of full thickness, measuring 2cm. X 1cm. x 1cm. accompanied by fracture of underlying occipital bone; age of injury was 12 to 18 hours and the opinion is that the said injury was probably caused by blunt and hard object with small hitting area. The internal injuries noticed by Dr. Satpute were : (1) Opening of skull showed skull cavity was filled with blood, there was massive injury to brain substance at occipital region, all sulci and gyri were disorganised, meninges were congested. (2) Opening of thorax showed walls and cartilages were intact, pleura appeared normal, there was full clotted blood in laryns, trachea and bronchi, there was no evidence of fracture, both lungs were congested, pericardium was intact, blood in all four chambers of heart was clotted, both cavities appeared normal and contained clotted blood. (3) Opening of abdomen showed walls and peritoneum were intact, abdominal cavity was normal looking without any fluid. (4) Mouth was closed with tongue inside and containing clotted blood, and there was fall of two incise teeth. (5) Gastric mucosa appeared normal with presence of 150ml. of semi partially digested food, large intestine was distended with gases and showed fecal matter, live was congested, approximately weighing 1.5kg., pancreas and suprarenal were normal, spleen was congested, approximately weighing 150 grams, kidney were also congested weighing approximately 140 grams. Dr. Satpute deposed that the probable cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to massive injury to brain substance, secondary to trauma to the scull/head. Dr. Dr. Satpute deposed that the probable cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to massive injury to brain substance, secondary to trauma to the scull/head. Dr. Satpute further deposed that the second injury referred to supra corresponding to internal injuries mentioned in column 19 of the postmortem report Exhibit 111 is most probably caused either by Article 11iron rod or Article 13 rafter and was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. It is not suggested to Dr. Satpute that the second injury could have been caused due to fall on ground and, therefore, the admission in the cross-examination which is that due to blow which caused the first injury, there was possibility of a person falling on the occipital region and suffering internal injuries mentioned in column 19 is of scant assistance to the defence. We note that it has come in the cross examination of PW 2 Samadhan that the first blow was inflicted on the occipital region which would exclude the possibility of the fatal injury being caused to the deceased due to fall on the tar road caused by the blow leading to the first injury. 6. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the evidence of PW 1 Bharat, PW 2 Samadhan and PW 3 Shila, who are examined as eyewitnesses, suffers from serious infirmities and the trial Court erred in relying on their testimonies. The submission is that PW 1 Bharat, PW 2 Samadhan and PW 3 Shila are interested or partisan witnesses and the infirmities in the evidence ought to have impelled the trial Court to scrutinize their evidence with extreme caution. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel would then seriously assail the evidentiary value of the recoveries which aspect shall be considered at a later stage in the judgment. Per contra, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J.Y. Ghurde is that the evidence of PW 1 Bharat, PW 2 Samadhan and PW 3 Shila is natural, truthful and confidence inspiring. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the judgment of conviction is unexceptionable and the ocular evidence on record which is corroborated by the medical and scientific evidence and the recoveries proves the complicity of accused Bhikaji and Santosh to the hilt. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the judgment of conviction is unexceptionable and the ocular evidence on record which is corroborated by the medical and scientific evidence and the recoveries proves the complicity of accused Bhikaji and Santosh to the hilt. 7. PW 1 Bharat has deposed that due to the political rivalry, accused 6 Badrinath used to instigate accused 5 Gajanan, the husband of Shila, as a result of which, accused Gajanan used to assault Shila who was compelled to reside with her father Madhukar. PW 1 Bharat states that Samadhan accompanied Madhukar and Shila to the Lonar Police Station on 20.3.2013 to lodge report against accused 5 Gajanan and returned between 730 p.m. to 745 p.m. Bharat states that he was standing in front of his house abutting road. Madhukar, Shila and Samadhan were on their way to their residence. Near the house of Bhagwan Ugalmugle there is a street light. PW 1 Bharat states that the house of Bhagwan Ugalmugle is adjacent to the house of Ganesh Ugalmugle which is situated towards the northern side of Bharat's house. PW 1 Bharat states that when Madhukar, Shila and Samadhan came near the house of Bhagwan Ugalmugle, the accused accosted and surrounded them. Accused Bhikaji was armed with iron rod. Accused Sounda was armed with rafter. Accused Gajanan, Sunil and Badrinath were armed with stones and accused 11 Vitthal was holding a stick. Accused Badrinath picked up a quarrel with Madhukar and abused him on the issue of Madhukar not supporting him in the election. Badrinath instigated accused 5 Gajanan to desert Shila and to assault Madhukar. Accused Bhikaji and accused Santosh then assaulted Madhukar by iron road on the mouth and backside of the head causing displacement of teeth. Accused Sounda also assaulted Madhukar by rafter on the mouth and backside of the head and accused 5 Gajanan, 6 Badrinath and 7Sunil hit Madhukar with stones. PW 1 Bharat then states that he attempted to rescue Madhukar and was assaulted by accused Sounda on the right shoulder by rafter. Samadhan also attempted to rescue Madhukar and was assaulted by accused Santosh on the head by iron road and Samadhan suffered bleeding injury. Shila attempted to intervene and was assaulted by accused Sounda on her left hand by rafter and PW 4 Ganesh, who attempted to intervene, was assaulted by accused Vitthal on the left shoulder. Samadhan also attempted to rescue Madhukar and was assaulted by accused Santosh on the head by iron road and Samadhan suffered bleeding injury. Shila attempted to intervene and was assaulted by accused Sounda on her left hand by rafter and PW 4 Ganesh, who attempted to intervene, was assaulted by accused Vitthal on the left shoulder. Raju Marotrao, Atmaram Deorao, Ravindra Radhakisan, Bhaskar Murlidhar rescued Madhukar and his family members. PW 1 Bharat then deposes that he and Bhaskar took the injured Madhukar on motorcycle to the Primary Health Centre, Bibi where Madhukar was declared dead. PW 1 Bharat proves the First Information Report Exhibit 67. Bharat states that police visited the spot of the incident on the next day and that he showed police the spot. Bharat identifies the clothes worn by the deceased and the iron rods Article 12 and Article 11 and states that the iron rods Article 12 and Article 11 were held by accused 1 Santosh and accused 1 Bhikaji respectively. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Mardikar took us through the relevant portion of the cross examination in an endeavour to persuade us to discard the testimony of PW 1 Bharat as unreliable. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel submits that PW 1 Bharat admits in the cross examination that he and Samadhan heard the shouts and rushed to the spot. According to the learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Mardikar, this admission would suggest that the witness reached the spot of occurrence after the assault and he did not witness the actual assault. We are not persuaded to accept the said submission. PW 1 Bharat states that he rushed at the spot within a minute. The spot of occurrence is the public road in front of the house of Bhagwan Ugalmugle and it has come in the examination in chief that Bhagwan's house is adjacent to the house of Ganesh which is towards the Northern side of Bharat's house. No attempt is made in the cross examination to bring on record the distance between Bharat's house and the spot of the incident. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel would then submit that the evidence that Madhukar was assaulted on the backside of the head has come on record as an omission. We note that the only omission is the word "back". This omission is not a material or significant omission. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel would then submit that the evidence that Madhukar was assaulted on the backside of the head has come on record as an omission. We note that the only omission is the word "back". This omission is not a material or significant omission. It is stated by Bharat in the first information report that the accused assaulted Madhukar on the head. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel would then submit that Bharat could not have shown the spot of occurrence to the police. Spot panchanama Exhibit 89 records that the panchanama was prepared between 1030 a.m. to 1130 a.m. on 21.3.2013. Post Morten Report Exhibit 111 records that autopsy was conducted from p.m. to 1215 p.m. on 21.3.2013. The submission is that since in the cross examination PW 1 Bharat admits that he was present during the autopsy conducted at Mehkar, he could not have been present at the spot of occurrence between 1030 a.m. to 1130 a.m. on 21.3.2013. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel invites our attention to the testimony of PW 10 Dr. Satpute who states that the dead body was identified by PW 1 Bharat. The fact that PW 1 Bharat was present during the autopsy conducted at Mehkar does not render his presence to be impossible at the spot of occurrence when the police was shown the spot of occurrence. It has not come in evidence that PW 1 Bharat was present at Mehkar from 845 a.m. to 1215 p.m. during which period the autopsy was conducted and the necessary formalities were completed. That apart, the Investigating Officer visited Khandala on at 930 p.m. on the day of the incident and was, therefore, aware of the spot of occurrence on the very day. The evidence of PW 12Shri Baviskar, who is the Investigating Officer, that he prepared the spot panchanama on 21.3.2013 is not shaken in the cross examination. That apart, the Investigating Officer visited Khandala on at 930 p.m. on the day of the incident and was, therefore, aware of the spot of occurrence on the very day. The evidence of PW 12Shri Baviskar, who is the Investigating Officer, that he prepared the spot panchanama on 21.3.2013 is not shaken in the cross examination. Considering the evidence on record holistically, whether it was PW 1 Bharat, who showed the spot of occurrence to the police on 21.3.2013 or on the day of the incident on 20.3.2013 or it was some other person who showed the spot to the Investigating Officer, is not significant enough since the substratum of the evidence of PW 1 Bharat or the credibility of the testimony is not dented even if it is assumed that PW 1 Bharat was present at the Mehkar Hospital between 830 a.m. to p.m. on 21.3.2013. PW 1 Bharat has deposed that he held his father while taking him to the hospital on motorcycle driven by Bhaskar. Irrefutably, the clothes worn by PW 1 Bharat, which in normal course would be blood stained, were not seized. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel is justified in the submission that the Investigating Officer ought to have seized the clothes worn by PW 1 Bharat. However, we are not persuaded to accept the further submission that this lapse in investigation must necessarily lead to the inference that PW 1 Bharat was not present at the scene of the incident or that he did not take his father Madhukar to the hospital and the entire testimony must, therefore, be discarded as unreliable. Shri Anil Mardikar has invited our attention to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Taran Singh and Another, (2003) 12 SCC 341 and State of Punjab vs. Harbans Singh and Another, (2003) 11 SCC 203 . In State of Punjab v. Harbans Singh and Another, the credibility of the evidence of PW 4 and PW 11 fell for consideration and the Hon'ble Apex Court considered their testimonies in the light of the evidence that the said witnesses and the accused belonged to different political factions and were not on friendly terms. The Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that there was evidence to show that PW 4 and PW 11 was partisan witnesses with antecedent of appearing as frequent prosecution witnesses. The Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that there was evidence to show that PW 4 and PW 11 was partisan witnesses with antecedent of appearing as frequent prosecution witnesses. On the basis of appreciation of evidence on record, it is observed in State of Punjab v. Harbans Singh and Another that since blood stained clothes were not recovered from PW 4 and PW 11 who claimed to have carried the two injured to the hospital, their presence on the spot of occurrence was doubtful. In State of Rajasthan v. Taran Singh and Another, the clothes of PW 1 and PW 2 which were seized were not blood stained. Considering the manner in which two witnesses claimed to have carried the deceased, it was held that absence of blood stains on their clothes would be an impossibility. In the present case, the clothes of PW 1 Bharat were not seized, which indeed is a lapse in investigation. However, since we are satisfied that the evidence of PW 1 Bharat is natural and truthful, concurring with the trial Court, we hold that the lapse in investigation would not lead to the inference that Bharat's presence on the spot is doubtful. It is not suggested to PW 1 Bharat that he could not identify the assailants due to darkness. The incident took place on a public road in the month of March between 730 p.m. to 745 p.m.. The fact that it is not stated in the first information report Exhibit 67 or in Bharat's statement under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that there is a street light near the house of Bhagwan Ugalmugle, is, therefore, not very significant. 8. PW 2 Samadhan is an injured witness. Samadhan has deposed broadly consistent with the version of PW 1 Bharat. Samadhan has identified the seized weapons and has deposed that accused Bhikaji was holding iron rod Article 11 and accused Santosh was holding iron rod Article 12. PW 2 Samadhan has deposed that when he attempted to intervene, accused Santosh inflicted an iron rod blow on his head causing bleeding injury and he was admitted in Rural Hospital for one day. The defence did not dispute that PW 2 Samadhan suffered injury. PW 11 Dr. PW 2 Samadhan has deposed that when he attempted to intervene, accused Santosh inflicted an iron rod blow on his head causing bleeding injury and he was admitted in Rural Hospital for one day. The defence did not dispute that PW 2 Samadhan suffered injury. PW 11 Dr. Rathod testified that Samadhan was brought to him in an injured condition between 830 p.m. to 900 p.m. on 20.3.2013 and that two injuries, simple in nature, caused by blunt object were noticed on scalp and back. PW 11 Dr. Rathod states that the injuries caused to PW 2 Samadhan are possible by iron rod Article 12. PW 11 Dr. Rathod has proved the injury certificate Exhibit 123. It is suggested to PW 11 Dr. Rathod that a person may sustain injuries on his scalp if his head bangs against the door while coming out of the house in a hurry, Dr. Rathod agrees. However, we note that it is not suggested to Dr. Rathod that the injury suffered by PW 2 Samadhan was due to his head banging against the door. That apart, the fact that there are several and diverse situations and manner in which a particular injury can be caused assumes little significance unless it is shown that the injury is probably caused in the manner suggested by the accused, particularly since we find no reason to disbelieve PW 2 Samadhan. The evidence of an injured witness is on a higher pedestal as compared to the other witnesses. The injuries suffered lend assurance to the presence of the witness on the spot. An injured witness is less likely to exculpate the guilty and inculpate the innocent. 9. PW 3 Shila has deposed that accused Bhikaji assaulted her father on the face with an iron rod uprooting his teeth and accused Santosh assaulted her father on the back of the head with iron rod. Shila also attributes assault by rafter to accused Sounda and by stone to accused Gajanan. The role attributed to accused Badrinath and Sunil are that they caught hold of her father's arms and brought him down on the ground. The reference to the words "face" and "uprooting of teeth" is brought on record as omission. Shila also attributes assault by rafter to accused Sounda and by stone to accused Gajanan. The role attributed to accused Badrinath and Sunil are that they caught hold of her father's arms and brought him down on the ground. The reference to the words "face" and "uprooting of teeth" is brought on record as omission. A stray answer in the cross examination on behalf of accused Badrinath and Sunil which is "it is true to say that I, Bharat, Samadhan and Gangubai came to the spot of incident. I remember, we had asked that what has this happened and who did it" is touted as an admission of the fact that PW 3Shila was not present at the spot of occurrence. However, we note that it is not disputed by the defence that PW 3Shila and deceased Madhukar had gone together to Lonar to lodge the police report and that they remained together. On behalf of the appellants, accused Bhikaji and Santosh, it is suggested to PW 3Shila that she had gone with her father to police station for lodging the report. The answer which is tauted as an admission is duly considered by the trial Court which observed that considering the evidence on record the so called admission cannot dislodge the credit worthy testimony of PW 1 Bharat and PW 2 Samadhan. We are inclined to agree with the observations of the trial Court in paragraphs 96 to 99 of the judgment impugned. 10. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Mardikar strenuously assailed the probative value of the recoveries. It is submitted that recovery at the instance of accused Bhikaji is suspect since he was arrested on 20.3.2013 and the recovery is shown on 23.3.2013. The other ground of attack is that both the panchas are related to the deceased and claimed to have been summoned by the police on telephone. It is further submitted that while the recoveries at the instance of accused Bhikaji, Santosh and Sounda vide Exhibits 97, 98 and 99 respectively are shown in quick succession between 1340 to hours, 1405 to 1425 hours and 1430 to 1450 hours respectively, it is not disclosed in the panchanama that all the accused were transported to the spots from which the weapons were recovered together and in the same vehicle. This renders the recoveries doubtful, is the submission. This renders the recoveries doubtful, is the submission. PW 7 Vijay Sanap has deposed that he was called at the Police Station Lonar on 23.3.2013 and was told by the Investigating Officer that some accused in police custody wished to disclose information about the weapons. PW 7 Vijay Sanap then states that accused Bhikaji, accused Santosh and accused Sounda were called one after the other and while Bhikaji and Santosh made disclosure statements regarding iron rods, Sounda made statement about rafter vide memorandum panchanamas Exhibits 94, 95 and 96. PW 7 Vijay Sanap then deposed that accused Bhikaji, Santosh and Sounda took the panchas and police to village Khandala. Accused Bhikaji went to his house, panchas and the police officers followed, from beneath the cot the accused Bhikaji took out an iron rod and produced the same before the police officer who seized it vide panchanama Exhibit 97. PW 7 Vijay Sanap then states that accused Santosh took then to his newly constructed house and from a room took out an iron rod and produced it before the Investigating Officer who seized it vide panchanama Exhibit 98 and accused Sounda produced a wooden rafter from a toilet of his house which was seized vide seizure panchanama Exhibit 99. PW 7 Vijay Sanap states that seizure panchanamas Exhibits 97, 98 and 99 bear his signatures and signatures of the other panch Ananta Ugalmugle, Police Officer and thumb impressions of accused Bhikaji, Santosh and Sounda. PW 7 Vijay Sanap further identified the accused and seized weapons produced by the accused. The evidence of PW 7 Vijay Sanap is corroborated by the evidence of PW 12 Baviskar, Inspector. We have closely scrutinized the evidence of PW 7 Vijay Sanap and the Investigating Officer PW 12 Baviskar. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence on recoveries. The fact that it is not stated in the panchanamas that all the accused were taken together to spot would not affect the substratum of the testimonies which we find reliable. Similarly, the fact that disclosure statement is made by accused Bhikaji after two days of the arrest per se would not render the discoveries doubtful. The blood group of the deceased was "AB". The weapons discovered at the instance of accused Bhikaji and Santosh were stained with blood group "AB" as is cleared from the chemical analysis report. Similarly, the fact that disclosure statement is made by accused Bhikaji after two days of the arrest per se would not render the discoveries doubtful. The blood group of the deceased was "AB". The weapons discovered at the instance of accused Bhikaji and Santosh were stained with blood group "AB" as is cleared from the chemical analysis report. No challenge mounted to the chemical analysis report. We are satisfied that the fact that the weapons discovered at the instance of accused Bhikaji and accused Santosh were found stained with blood group "AB", corroborates ocular evidence of PW 1 Bharat, PW 2 Samadhan and PW 3 Shila. Considering the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proved the complicity of accused Bhikaji and accused Santosh in causing the death of Madhukar by assailants with iron rods. We find no substance in the appeal which we accordingly dismiss. 11. The bail bonds of the appellants accused shall stand cancelled. 12. The appellants accused are directed to surrender before the trial Court within two weeks to serve the sentence, failing which appropriate coercive action shall be taken by the trial Court to take the appellants accused in custody.