Bombay High Court
Sarjerao Sahadeo Gaikwad And Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997BOMCR(CRI)~, 1997CRILJ3839
Author: Vishnu Sahai
Bench: Ranjana Desai, Vishnu Sahai
ORDER Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Since both these matters arise out of the same incident and a common impugned Judgment, we propose, disposing them off by one Judgment.
2. Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 11-5-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 83 of 1983.
Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1984 has been preferred by Sarjerao Sahadeo Gaikwad and Babasaheb Keshav Patil against their convictions and sentences. These two appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :-
Sarjerao Gaikwad :
Under section 304, Part II, IPC to five years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. R.I. for one year.
Babasaheb Patil :
i) Under section 307, IPC to three years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year;
ii) Under section 326, IPC to one year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for six months; and
iii) Under section 323, IPC to one month's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one month.
His substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 1984 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against acquittal of the respondents under section 302, IPC, 307 r/w 34, IPC and 323 r/w 34, IPC. etc.
3. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :-
The three victims are related inter se. The deceased Ganpati was husband of Gojabai Shinde, PW 12, and father of Babutai Patil, PW 11.
It is said that on 12-6-1982, sometime before 11 a.m. Ganpati, his wife and Bhimrao Patil, PW 6 had gone to village Kupwale for attending the funeral ceremony relating to Bhimrao Patil's uncle. Since Babutai's parents had gone to attend the funeral ceremony she was alone at her house in village Tadwale. At that time, accused Sahadeo, his sisters, accused Sarjerao and Hindurao with one other (later on his name came to be known as accused Babasaheb Keshav Patil) came and started fixing wire fencing in the courtyard. (It is not disputed that the courtyard was common and was contiguous to the houses of the accused and Babutai) Babutai asked them not to fix the wire fencing because, it was their land. At that the accused Hindurao and Sarjerao threatened her to keep quiet. Consequently, Babutai kept quiet. Thereafter, all the accused persons fixed poles, tied wire, applied red colour to the poles and sat on the cot in verandah of their house.
At about 12 noon, parents of Babutai, Ganpati and Gojabai returned from the funeral ceremony. Ganpati asked the accused persons as to why they had fixed the poles. At that the accused Hindurao, Sarjerao and Sahadeo came out of their house. An altercation ensued on the issue of fixing poles between both the sides. In the meantime, accused Babasaheb also came and abused Ganpati, Ganpati asked Babasaheb not to abuse him.
It is said that Hindurao, Sarjerao and Sahadeo went to their house and came out immediately with crowbars and sticks; while Sarjerao had a crowbar. Sahadeo and Hindurao had sticks. The three of them started assaulting Ganpati with crowbars and sticks. Babasaheb who was also with them took the crowbar from the hands of Sarjerao and started assaulting Ganpati. Ganpati's wife Gojabai tried to intervene. Babasaheb inflicted a blow on her head. Other accused also assaulted her with sticks. It is said that Babutai who also intervened was assaulted by Babasaheb with a crowbar on her head, shoulder and left hand. This incident apart from Gojabai PW 12, Babutai PW 11, was seen by Bhimrao Patil, PW 6, Vithal Patil PW 7, Bhanudas Patil PW 8 and Laxman Mohite PW 9.
It is said that after assaulting Ganpati, Babutai and Gojabai, the accused persons ran away from the place of the incident.
The evidence is that the victims were taken to the sopa of their house Babutai's cousins Baji and Dattu took the victims on a tempo to Shirala but, before the tempo could arrive, Ganpati had breathed his last.
4. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Babutai PW 11. The evidence is that it was lodged at 9.10 p.m. the same day. It was recorded by P. I. Kallappa More, PW 16.
5. Going backwards, the injuries of Babutai and Gojabai, were medically examined on 12-6-1983 at 8 p.m. by Dr. Bajirao Patil, PW 15 at Shirala Dispensary.
On the person of Gojabai, the doctor found the following injuries :-
(1) Incised wound on the scalp frontal region about 6" x 2" x bone deep and fracture of skull underneath with bleeding was present. Wound was seen and felt bleeding was present.
(2) C.L.W. on the left thigh midway laterally situated about 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" in size.
(3) Subconjunctival haemorrhage on the rt. side at lid black eye rt. side.
In the opinion of Dr. Patil, injury No. 1 was attributable to a sharp and hard object and the injuries Nos. 2 and 3 could have been caused by a blunt object. All the injuries were 24 hours old. Dr. Patil also found fracture of skull beneath injury No. 1. He stated that the said injury could be caused by a crow-bar article (13).
On the person of Babutai, the doctor found the following injuries :-
1. Abrasion on rt. shoulder about 2" x 1" in size.
2. Liner contusion on the rt. scapular about 2" x 1/2" in size.
3. Contusion on the left palm about 1" x 1" in size.
In his opinion, the said injuries were 24 hours old and were attributable to a hard and blunt object. Since the condition of Gojabai was precarious, Dr. Patil referred her to the Civil Hospital, Sangli.
6. The post-mortem examination of Ganpati was conducted on 13-7-1983 by Dr. Avinash Kulkarni, PW 14. On the corpse, Dr. Kulkarni found the following two ante-morteminjuries :-
(1) Big wound on the head Rt. anterolaterally 5" x 2" x 5".
(2) Injury on Rt. thigh 1" x 1/2" x 1".
On internal examination, he found fracture of skull and right femur. In the opinion of Dr. Kulkarni, the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury and fracture if right femur.
Dr. Kulkarni also stated that these injuries could be caused by crowbar article 13.
7. It is significant to point out that on the date of the incident itself at 2.45 p.m. Dr. Kulkarni, PW 14 had medically examined the accused-appellant Sarjerao and had found on his person a lacerated wound on the head, anterio lateral, 3" x 1/2" x 1/4" in size and tenderness and a contusion on left shoulder. In his opinion, the said injuries were caused within 24 hours and were attributable to a blunt object.
8. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to point out that an FIR of the incident was also lodged by the accused-appellant Sarjerao the same day, at 3.50 p.m. at Police Station Shirla. On the basis of the said FIR (Exhibit 15) N.C. Crime No. 85 of 1983 under sections 323, 504, r/w 34 IPC was registered against the deceased Ganpati, the injured Gojabai and Babutai. The substance of the information in Sarjerao's FIR is that his fencing had been removed by the accused and when he went to protest, he was assaulted by crow-bar on his head. The time of the incident mentioned in the FIR is 2.25 p.m.
9. Investigation was conducted by P. I. More PW 16. After recording Babutai's FIR. Exhibit 37, he proceeded for the place of the incident that very night. Next day, he recorded the statement of Bhimrao and 14 witnesses : prepared the inquest panchanama; spot panchanama; attached the blood-stained saris and blouse of Babutai under a panchanama; and clothes of the deceased under a panchanama. On 15-6-1983, the accused Sarjerao who had been arrested, stated in the presence of panchas that he could get the crowbars recovered from his house consequently, in the presence of panchas, from a barrel kept under a staircase of Sarjerao's house, a crow-bar was recovered on the pointing out of Sarjerao Sticks were also recovered from some of the accused persons. Some of the recovered articles were sent to the Chemical Analyst. Finally, on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted.
10. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial court, the accused persons were charged for offences punishable under section 302 IPC etc. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Suggestion of the defence given to the eye-witnesses, in the cross-examination was that accused Sarjerao asked Ganpati not to remove the fencing. On that Ganpati assaulted Sarjerao with a crow-bar. His wife and daughter Gojabai and Babutai respectively assaulted him with sticks. Sarjerao snatched the crow bar from Ganpati and assaulted him.
It is significant to point out that in defence, the accused examined Ananda Patil, DW 1 and his evidence is more or less akin to the suggestion given by the defence to the eye-witnesses.
During trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Six of them namely Bhimrao Patil, Vithal Patil, Bhanudas Patil, Laxman Mohite, Babutai Patil and Gojabai Shinde, PW 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 respectively were examined is eye-witnesses. The trial Judge after recording the evidence adduced by the parties; the statement of the accused persons under section 313 Cr PC; and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned Judgment. Hence, these two connected appeals.
11. We have heard Mr. R. S. Mohite for the appellants and Mr. V. T. Tulpule, Public Prosecutor for the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1984 and Mr. V. T. Tulpule for the appellant and Mr. R. S. Mohite, for the respondents in Criminal Appeal no. 627 of 1984. We have perused the evidence on record and thoughtfully reflected over the matter. We are of the view that whereas appeal preferred by the accused persons viz. Criminal Appeal no. 434 of 1984 deserves to be allowed that preferred by the State of Maharashtra should be dismissed.
12. What appears is that on the date of the incident, an incident took place in which, three persons from the prosecution side, namely Ganpati, Gojabai and Babutai received injuries and Sarjerao sustained injuries from the side of the accused. It also appears that with respect to the same incident, both the sides lodged FIRs. Babutai lodged an FIR at 9.10 p.m. the same day and Sarjerao lodged his FIR at 3.50 p.m. the same day. The dispute however, is regarded the time of the incident and whether the incident took place in the manner set out by the prosecution witnesses or in that alleged by the defence or in some other manner.
13. It is significant to point out that all the eye-witnesses have stated in their examination-in-chief that the incident took place at about 12 noon. It is well-settled that even in a case where the right of private defence is pleaded, the prosecution is not absolved of its obligation of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and only when it has discharged that obligation, or primary burden; within the terms of section 101 of The Indian Evidence Act, is the burden shifted on the accused within the terms of section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act.
14. So the first question is whether the prosecution version of the incident unfolded by these eye-witnesses inspires confidence or not ? In short, all these eye-witnesses have stated that on the date of the incident, at about 12 noon, after the deceased had returned from the funeral ceremony, he reprimanded the accused persons for fixing the poles. On this, an altercation between the accused persons and the deceased took place. The accused Sarjerao, Hindurao and Sahadeo went to their house which was in the immediate proximity of the place of the incident, brought sticks and crow-bars, and thereafter appellant Babasaheb Patil also joined them. They launched an assault on Ganpati. When Gojabai and Babutai tried to intervene they also assaulted them. We have examined the said version given out by these eye-witnesses. In our Judgment, it suffers from a patent flaw namely that five of the eye-witnesses viz. Bhimrao Patil, Vithal Patil, Bhanudas Patil, Babutai and Gojabai PWs 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 respectively have wholly failed to explain the injuries of Sarjerao either in their examination in Chief or when they were cross-examined with respect to them. They have maintained an ominous silence with respect to Sarjerao's injuries. Laxman Mohite PW 9 did make a semblance of an effort to explain the injuries of Sarjerao but, the said explanation is only an eye-wash; in fact it is no explanation in law. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when Ganpati tried to remove the pillars with an iron bar, the accused Sarjerao came forward and prevented Sarjerao from doing so. Thereupon, a quarrel took place between Ganpati and Sarjerao. Sarjerao was injured during the incident. He was cross-examined with respect to Sarjerao's injury and replied that he had not seen Gojabai or Babutai assaulting Sarjerao on his head. He also denied Ganpati of having assaulted him. In other words, apart from making a bald statement that Sarjerao received injuries during the incident, he had not cared to explain as to how the injuries of Sarjerao were caused, in our view, his explanation does not inspire any confidence. It is significant to point out that the injuries of Sarjerao included a lacerated wound of the dimension 3" x 1/2" x 1/4" on his head and the said injury was accompanied by bleeding when it was medically examined. It is also significant to point that in the FIR lodged by Sarjerao, there is a reference to the fact that he had suffered injuries as a result of the assault by a crow-bar, by the accused persons named in his FIR. It is also pertinent to point out that Sarjerao's FIR was lodged the same day at 3.50 p.m.; in fact 6 hours earlier than the FIR lodged by Babutai PW 11. In our view the injuries suffered by Sarjerao were substantial. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the Public Prosecutor that they could have been manufactured.
15. In our view, failure of the eye-witnesses to explain Sarjerao's injuries is itself sufficient to give the appellants the benefit of doubt. Mr. Tulpule, learned Public Prosecutor urged that the time of the incident mentioned in Sarjerao's FIR was 2.25 p.m. He urged that obligation of the prosecution is to only explain the injuries which are received during the course of the incident. He pointed out that the incident according to the eye-witnesses took place at 12 noon. He contended that the injuries on Sarjerao were not sustained during the course of the same incident, wherein the injuries were suffered by Ganpati, Gojabai and Babutai and consequently, the prosecution was not obliged to explain them. On the first blush, his argument appeared to be pregnant with merit. On a deeper scrutiny. We realised that first impressions are often deceptive. Mr. Mohite, learned counsel for the accused persons invited our attention to the evidence of Babutai, PW 11 and Gojabai PW 12. Babutai has stated that the incident took place at about 3 p.m. and Gojabai has alleged that it took place at about 2 p.m. In view of the said admissions, the probability of the incident taking place at 2.25 p.m. as alleged in Sarjerao's FIR, cannot be ruled, out.
In the light of this evidence, in our Judgment, the prosecution was duty bound to explain the injuries of Sarjerao, and its failure to do so is sufficient to acquit the appellants in view of the observations of the Apex Court, in para 11, of the oft-quoted Judgment of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, .
16. We would like to refer to the fallacious conception of law which finds place in the impugned Judgment. It is to be found in para 30. In the said para, the learned trial Judge has observed that even assuming that Sarjerao had received injuries with a crow bar at the hands of the deceased Ganpati, since he had snatched the crow bar from Ganpati, after receiving the injuries no reasonable apprehension to his life remained and therefore, he was not justified in killing Ganpati. To use the exact words of the trial court.
"In other words, accused Sarjerao's alleged right of self-defence came to an end at the very moment he snatched away the crow-bar from the hands of deceased Ganpati."
We are afraid that the learned trial Judge is ignorant about the provisions contained in section 102 IPC. The said section reads thus :-
102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body :-
The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed, and it continues as long as apprehension of danger to the body continues."
A perusal of the said section would show that the right of private defence continues so long the apprehension continue. The learned trial Judge lost sight of two things. Firstly, what was there to prevent Ganpati from snatching back the crow bar from the hands of Sarjerao and again assaulting Sarjerao and secondly, according to the defence, Ganpati was accompanied by his wife Gojabai and daughter Babutai. The suggestion of the defence is that they also assaulted Sarjerao with sticks. In such a situation, the learned trial Judge was grossly unjustified in holding that right of private defence came to end. It continued because apprehension at the hands of Ganpati and others continued. Mr. Tuplule, also contended that there was no justification for Sarjerao to have assaulted the two ladies. The two ladies namely Babutai and Gojabai were accompanying the deceased and were members of the aggressor party. We are of the view that the right of private defence also extended to causing them injuries.
17. There can be no manner of doubt that the injuries sustained by Sarjerao fell within the ambit of clause firstly and secondly of Section 100, IPC. After receiving those injuries, Sarjerao could have had an apprehension of death as contemplated by clause firstly of Section 100, IPC. After receiving those injuries, Sarjerao could have had an apprehension of death as contemplated by clause firstly of Section 100, IPC and an apprehension of grievous hurt as contemplated by clause secondly of Section 100, IPC. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court Deo Narain v. State wherein the facts were that the deceased had raised a lathi on the head of the accused and pursuant to that, the accused had inflicted a solitary spear blow on the chest of the deceased. The Supreme Court castigated the Judgment of the High Court had found the accused guilty of exceeding the right of private defence of a person on the ground that the High Court had over-looked the provisions of Section 100 IPC. In these circumstances, Sarjerao's right of private defence of person extended to causing death of Ganpati and causing grievous injuries to Gojabai and simple injuries to Babutai.
18. Mr. Tulpule, learned Public Prosecutor also urged that except for an endeavour made by DW 1 Ananda Patil belatedly to explain the injuries on the side of the prosecution, no attempt has been made by the accused persons to explain the injuries sustained by the victims on the prosecution side. Perhaps he is right when he urges so. But, what he seems to be overlooking is that neither have the injuries of Sarjerao been explained by the prosecution. In such a situation, both the prosecution and the defence are suppressing their own aggression in the incident and are only coming out with the partial truth. In such a situation, the gainer is not the prosecution. It is always the defence for prosecution has to swim on its own strength and not on frailties of defence. We are fortified in our view by the observations of Their Lordships of the Apex Court, in para 12, of the oft-quoted Judgment of Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar . The observations are to the following effect at page 893 (of Cri LJ) :-
"An neither the prosecution nor the defence have, in the case before us, come out with the whole and unvarinished truth, so as to enable the court to Judge where the rights and wrongs of the whole incident or set of incidents lay or how one or more incidents took place in which so many persons including Laldhari and Ramanadan, were injured Courts can only try to guess or conjecture to decipher the truth if possible. This may be done within limits, to determine whether any reasonable doubt emerges on any point under consideration from proved facts and circumstances of the case."
19. For the said reasons, we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Hence the convictions of the appellants Sarjerao Sahadeo Gaikwad and Babasaheb Keshav Patil cannot be sustained in law and they deserve to be acquitted. We are also satisfied that Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 1984 whereby acquittal of the respondents on various counts has been impugned, deserves to be dismissed.
20. In the result, these appeals are decided in the following manner :-
(i) Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1984 is allowed. The conviction of the two appellants namely Sarjerao Sahadeo Gaikwad and Babasaheb Keshav Patil on various counts is set aside. They are acquitted for the offences found guilty by the trial court. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. In case the have paid the fine, the same shall stand refunded to them.
(ii) Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 1984 preferred by the State of Maharashtra against acquittal of the four respondents stands dismissed. The respondents are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged.
In case an application for a certified copy of this Judgment is preferred, the same shall be issued on an expedited, basis.
21. Order accordingly.