AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. G. Giratkar, J
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/Â, in default imprisonment for six months.
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 8Â10 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. Sometimes 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.
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. ComplainantÂhusband of the deceased rushed there. Accused ran away from the spot of incident. Deceased died on the
spot.
ComplainantÂRamchandra Bhaiya Shelokar went to Police Station, Paratwada and lodged the report. Police Inspector Akotkar reduced the
report (Exh.Â12) into writing and registered crime (Exh.Â13). 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. After complete investigation, chargeÂsheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who in
turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
Charge (Exh.Â7) 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.
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.
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 hs 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.
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.Â12).
In crossÂexamination, nothing is brought on record to disbelieve his testimony. On the other hand, in the crossexamination, it is brought on record
that the accused had illicit relations with his wife. He has denied material suggestions.
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 crossÂexamination of this witness to disbelieve her version.
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.Â37). 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.
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.
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.Â
Accused was located at Dound, District Pune. He was arrested at Dound, on 29.05.2015. Call Detail Reports (CDR) (Exh.Â48) of the mobile
phone of the accused shown location of the accused at Dound.
The accused could not give any explanation about the presence of human blood on his clothes. He was absconding from the time of incident.Â
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.Â
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.
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...â€
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 crossÂexamination
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.
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/Â.