Rajkumar @ Rupesh Bhure vs State Of Maharashtra

(PER: ROHIT W. JOSHI)

The present appeal is preferred in order to challenge judgment and order dated 11/07/2022 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Gondia in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2019 whereby the appellant - accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

As per the prosecution case, the accused has committed murder of the deceased, who was his father-in-law, in the residential house of the deceased on 19/07/2019 at around 01:00 to 01:30 a.m. by inflicting blows with a knife. According to the prosecution case, the wife of the deceased, his daughter (wife of the accused) and the brother of the deceased found the accused in the house with a knife immediately after he had inflicted the wounds on the person of the deceased, and further that the accused fled from the crime scene by pushing away the brother of the deceased who tried to catch him. The prosecution has examined wife of the deceased (PW-1), brother of the deceased (PW-2), wife of the accused (PW-4). These witnesses, although they are not eyewitnesses to the actual incident, have seen the accused with a knife in his hand immediately after the incident had occurred and have seen him fleeing from the spot. The postmortem report records the cause of death as hemorrhage and shock due to stab wounds. The post-mortem report indicates 2 stab wounds on the person of the deceased. The size of first wound is recorded as 2 cm x 1 cm and length is cavity deep. This stab wound is at the epigastric region. The other stab wound is of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm and is muscle deep. This stab wound is also over the epigastric region. Injury due to this stab wound is caused to the small intestine and liver. The knife is seized on a statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act beside a railway track where it was found lying under a cement block. The C.A. report indicates that human blood was detected on the shirt of the accused and clothes of the deceased, however, blood group of the deceased could not be ascertained. The blood group of the bloodstains on the clothes of the accused and the deceased also could not be determined. The knife which was seized from the deceased does not have bloodstains.

The learned Sessions Court has convicted the accused relying upon the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4. The learned Sessions Court has found that although the said witnesses had not witnessed the actual incident of stabbing, however, all of them had seen the accused fleeing from the spot immediately after the blows were inflicted on the deceased.

Mr. Rahul Khaparde, the learned advocate for the appellant - accused vehemently argued that the incident has occurred late at night when all the family members including the deceased were sleeping. He contends that there is no evidence with respect to electricity supply to the house. He further argued that since the incident had occurred at night, the evidence of prosecution witnesses that they had seen the accused fleeing from the spot cannot be accepted. The learned advocate further argued that as per the case of prosecution, none of the witnesses can be said to be eyewitnesses to the incident. The learned advocate also contends that PW-1 (wife of the deceased) has stated that while the assailant was fleeing from the spot, she had raised an alarm by uttering the words "thief-thief", which implies that the statement that the witnesses had seen the accused fleeing from the spot is incorrect. According to the learned advocate, there was a matrimonial discord between the daughter of the deceased i.e. wife of the accused and the accused, and therefore, in order to reap the benefit of the unfortunate demise of the deceased and to get rid of the accused, the wife and her family members have falsely implicated the accused in the offence, despite being aware that some other person has committed the offence. The learned advocate contends that in the absence of a direct eyewitness account, the learned Sessions Court ought not to have convicted the accused in the facts of the present case. The learned advocate argues that the alleged weapon of offence is seized from an open place which is accessible to all, and therefore, the fact of alleged discovery of weapon does not carry any weight. He further points out that the alleged weapon of assault, stated to be recovered from the accused does not bear any bloodstains. In the light of the aforesaid, the learned advocate contends that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and that the chain of circumstances is not complete. The learned advocate, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted.

Per contra, Mr. A. B. Badar, learned APP for the respondent/State, supports the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court and the order imposing punishment of life imprisonment. The learned APP contends that the evidence of all 3 witnesses are unambiguous and confidence-inspiring. He draws attention to the spot panchanama and the map to demonstrate that there is a street light in front of the house of the deceased where the incident has occurred. He has pointed out from the map that the deceased was sleeping on the cot in the chapri of the house, and PW-1 (wife of the deceased), PW-2 (his brother) and 2 children of the accused and PW-4 were sleeping in the adjoining room. The learned APP contends that immediately after being assaulted, the deceased raised an alarm, upon hearing which the brother of the deceased, who was urinating in the open space, immediately rushed to the spot and caught hold of the accused, PW-1 and PW-4 also came out of the room and found the deceased lying injured and the accused armed with a knife, and at that time, the accused pushed PW-2 & fled from the spot. The learned APP contends that these by themselves are sufficient to sustain the order of conviction against the accused.

We have heard the rival submissions as aforesaid. We have also perused the depositions and documentary evidence on record with the able assistance of the learned advocates.

There cannot be any doubt about the fact of homicidal death of the deceased. The case of the appellant - accused is that some other person is author of the injuries and he is being falsely implicated only because of matrimonial discord between him and his wife (PW-4), who is the daughter of the deceased.

Perusal of the evidence of PW-1 will demonstrate that the marriage of the accused was solemnized with her daughter (PW-4) around 20 to 22 years back. The couple is blessed with 2 children namely Naitik and Kartik. She has also stated that the accused had been to their house along with his wife PW-4 and 2 children to reside there for some time. She has stated that while the accused was residing at their house, he had beaten his wife (PW-4) and the deceased had intervened in the matter. She has also stated that the accused was addicted to liquor and used to always quarrel with the deceased. According to her version, in the night of 19/07/2019 at around 01:30 a.m., when she, her daughter, and two grandsons were sleeping in the room, they heard cries of the deceased as ‘save-save’ and that when they came out of the room to the ‘chapri’ of the house, they found that the deceased was injured and the accused fled from the spot by pushing PW-2, the brother of the deceased. In her cross-examination, a suggestion was put to her that PW-2, brother of the deceased, was residing in another house, which she denied. She has admitted the suggestion that the accused and his wife (PW-4) used to look after the deceased. She has further admitted that while the accused was residing with them, they had no problem with him. Suggestions were put to this witness that the deceased was not happy with the fact that his daughter, i.e. wife of the accused, used to frequently come to her parents' house, and that there used to be quarrels between the father and the daughter on this count. She has denied the said suggestion. Likewise, a suggestion was put that the her daughter (PW-4) used to visit the house of one Ritesh Kewat frequently which was also not liked by the accused. The witness admitted that while giving her statement at the hospital, she had stated that immediately after the incident at the house, she had raised a hue and cry by shouting the words "thief, thief". However, she has denied that she was shouting the words "thief, thief", because she could not identify the assailant due to darkness.

PW-2, who is the brother of the deceased, has deposed that he was staying jointly with the family of his brother. He has stated that the accused was addicted to liquor and used to beat his wife frequently. He has stated that in the night of 19/07/2019, at about 01:00 a.m., the deceased was sleeping in the chapri. He has stated that he had woken up for urination approximately between 1:00 am to 1:30 am, when he heard the deceased shouting "save-save". He has deposed that he immediately rushed towards the 'chapri' where the deceased was sleeping and saw the accused running from there. He has also stated that as he tried to catch hold of the accused, the accused pushed him and ran away from the spot. He has stated that blood was oozing from the stomach of the deceased who had suffered stab injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to Rural Hospital, Tiroda, and from there to KTS Hospital, Gondia, and further to a hospital at Nagpur, where he expired. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the incident had happened in complete darkness. A suggestion was put to him that he and his brother (deceased) were sleeping separately in the chapri of the house, which he has admitted. He denied the suggestion that the electric pole is at the rear side of the house. He denied the suggestion that since PW-4, the wife of the accused, did not want to live with the accused, the witnesses, who are family members, were falsely implicating the accused in the crime.

PW-4, the wife of the accused, has also stated that at around 01:00 to 01:30 a.m. in the night of 19/07/2019, immediately after hearing shouts from her father, she, her mother, and her elder son got up and came out of the room, where they saw that PW-2 had caught hold of the accused who then pushed PW-2 and ran away from the spot. She has stated that her father had sustained injuries on his stomach and blood was oozing from the said injuries. In her cross-examination, she has accepted the suggestion that PW-2, elder brother of the deceased, resided separately from the family. Questions were put to her about false implication, which she has denied. She has, however, admitted that the accused did not have any dispute with her father/deceased.

The evidence of all three prosecution witnesses is consistent. They have deposed that in the night of 19/07/2019 at about 01:00 a.m., on hearing the cries of the deceased, PW-1 and PW-4 came out of the adjoining room where they were sleeping, and PW-2, who had woken up for urination, also came to the chapri where the deceased was lying injured and the accused fled from the scene by pushing PW-2. In the cross-examination, nothing worthwhile is brought on record in order to discredit this testimony. The suggestion was put forth to all the witnesses that the assailant could not be identified by them due to darkness and the accused was being falsely implicated due to a matrimonial dispute between him and his wife/daughter of the deceased. The spot of incident is not seriously disputed. The evidence would suggest that bloodstains were found on the floor of the chapri of the house and also on the mosquito net. Perusal of the spot panchanama and sketch map would indicate that there is a street light in front of the place of incident at a distance of about 40 feet. The accused is not a person unknown to the prosecution witnesses, who are the wife, mother-in-law and brother of father-in-law of the accused. In view of the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused was present at the crime scene armed with a knife and that the deceased was lying injured, coupled with the fact that PW-2 has deposed that he tried to catch the accused who fled from the spot by pushing him, the case that the assailant could not be identified due to darkness cannot be accepted.

It must also be stated that human blood is found on the shirt of the accused, for which, there is no plausible explanation. The knife which was discovered does not have any bloodstains and the discovery of the knife is from an open place i.e. beside the railway track. Likewise, bloodstains are also not found on the knife. The alleged discovery of weapon is, therefore, not of any relevance. However, in order to prove the offence, it is not always necessary that the weapon must be discovered or seized. As stated above, there are 3 witnesses who have seen the accused at the spot of incident while the deceased was lying injured. The incident has occurred in residential house of the deceased, who is father-in-law of the accused. It is the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that the accused immediately fled from the crime scene. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent and inspiring confidence, ocular evidence is corroborated by blood stains on the clothes of the accused.

In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court cannot be interfered with. The learned Sessions Court has given cogent reasons for placing reliance on the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses and has rightly convicted the appellant - accused for the murder of his father- in-law/deceased. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of conviction does not warrant any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.