Bombay High Court
Vishal @ Gullu S/O Vijay Srivastava vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Sakkardara, ... on 10 April, 2018
Author: V. M. Deshpande
Bench: V. M. Deshpande
1 apeal263.268.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.263/2006
Vishal alias Gullu s/o Vijay Srivasatava,
aged 22 years, Occ. Student, r/o Santoshi
Mata Mandir, Nagpur. .....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Sakkardara, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. V. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. R. Srivastava and
Mr. A.A. Gupta, Advocates for appellant.
Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.268/2006
Anwar Khan s/o Mukim Khan,
aged 21 years, Occ. Private Service,
r/o Santoshi Mata Nagar, Old Sakkardara,
Nagpur. .....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Sakkardara, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate Appointed for the appellant.
Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 10.04.2018
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
2 apeal263.268.06.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These two appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction dated 04.05.2005 passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.304/2005. Therefore, they are heard together and they are decided by this common judgment.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. Criminal Appeal No.263/2006 is filed by the original accused no.1-Vishal alias Gullu Srivastava and Criminal Appeal No.268/2006 is filed by original accused no.2-Anwar Khan.
Vishal-accused no.1 is represented by Mr. Avinash Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. R. Srivastava and Mr. A. A. Gupta, Advocates. Whereas, Anwar-accused no.2 is represented by Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate appointed by the Court. ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
3 apeal263.268.06.odt Facts in brief:
4. The prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. The FIR is lodged by Smt. Rekhabai Sangele (PW2). It is dated 05.04.2005. The oral report is at Exh.-27. The gist of the FIR is that her son Yogesh; the deceased, used to work with one cable operator as daily wager. On 04.04.2005, he came from his work at 5 O'clock. That time, it was revealed to him that one of his relatives Ankur is in Sakkardara police station's lock up and his two wheeler is also detained there. Therefore, he went to the Sakkardara police station and brought his two wheeler Hero Honda motorcycle and he was plying the said vehicle. That time, both the accused persons also were in his company. At about 9.15 p.m., as per the prosecution, some altercations took place between these three persons in which Yogesh was assaulted by accused persons by fist blows and he was lying on the spot; was the information that was transmitted to the first informant by one Rajkumar. On getting the said information, the first informant reached to the spot. She noticed her son Yogesh was lying in unconscious condition and accused no.2-Anwar was standing there. The FIR itself shows that one Ajay Nafre (PW4) and accused Anwar with the help of one Omprakash Betiwar (PW3) ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 4 apeal263.268.06.odt took Yogesh firstly to one Chandsi Hospital and from there he was taken to the Medical College where he was declared dead. Crime was registered on the basis of this report lodged by Smt. Rekha (PW2) with Police Station, Sakkardara vide Crime No.259/2005 for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons. The investigation of this crime was handed over to PI Sejul by PSI Omprakash Thakur who had registered the offence. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of law. The offence since was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the committal order was passed and the case has landed in the Court of Sessions and it was registered as Sessions Trial No.304/2005.
5. The learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, below Exh.-17 framed the charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused abjured their guilt and claimed that they be tried.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and also ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 5 apeal263.268.06.odt relied on various documents which were duly proved during the course of trial.
After a full dress trial and after appreciating the prosecution case, the learned Judge of the Court below acquitted both the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC however convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC as observed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
Arguments:
6. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, strenuously urged before me that the case of the prosecution cannot sustain in the eye of law on the basis of the available evidence on record. He sharply attacked the prosecution case right from its inception inasmuch as it is his submission that the FIR (Exh.-27) cannot be termed as an FIR. He submitted that the from the evidence of Rekha (PW2) it is clear that, before the first information was recorded by police authorities, Rekha gave her oral report at police booth situated at Medical College and the said is not brought on record. Therefore, the Court should draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. He submits that since . ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
6 apeal263.268.06.odt Rekha (PW2) has already reported the matter to the police authorities, subsequent statement of Rekha cannot be termed as an FIR and at the most it could be her statement.
He also pointed out that the medical evidence in the case is not reliable inasmuch as according to him, the doctor who has conducted the post mortem is ready to make any statements which are improbable and is contrary to the record. He also attacked the testimony of two prosecution witnesses Omprakash (PW3) and Ajay (PW4) who were examined as eye witnesses. According to him, these persons cannot be termed as eye witnesses if the evidence of Sharda (PW1) is scrutinized minutely and she being the prosecution witness, her evidence is binding on the prosecution.
In that behalf, Mr. Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel, relied on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in ( 2005) 5 SCC 258, and Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in ( 2005) 5 SCC 258.
7. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Courts are never bound by the testimony of the doctors. According to him, the evidence of the Doctor itself ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 7 apeal263.268.06.odt is an opinion. He also invited attention of this Court to Mayur Panabhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat; reported in 1982 (2) SCC 396, and also Tomaso Brunao and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; reported in 2015 (7) SCC 178, to attack on the testimony of Dr. Makarand Vyavhare (PW6).
Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant also made the submissions on the line of submissions of Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.
8. Per contra, Mr. Rode, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State would submit that the Court below has correctly placed reliance on the testimony of Omprakash (PW3) and Ajay (PW4) who are the witnesses of assault by fist and kick blows on the deceased Yogesh. He submitted that the evidence of the doctor clearly shows that the injuries suffered by Yogesh are outcome fist blows and kick blows. He therefore submitted that the appeal be dismissed.
Evaluation of complaint/FIR in the light of evidence:
9. First of all, I would like to examine as to whether Exh.- 27 can be termed as an FIR.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
8 apeal263.268.06.odt As per Exh.-27, Rekha (PW2) mother of the deceased arrived on the spot, after she received information from one Rajkumar. This Rajkumar is not examined by the prosecution. During trial, through the evidence, it is brought on record that Rekha and her daughter were called after arrival of Sharda and Ajay on the spot and after sprinkling of the water on Yogesh in an attempt to regain his consciousness.
10. As per the evidence of Sharda (PW1), Yogesh was lying in front of her house. Her evidence shows that Omprakash (PW3) came to her house at 9.30 p.m. and demanded water. She asked as to for what purpose he is demanding water. Thereupon it was revealed by him to her that Yogesh was lying in an unconscious state on the road and therefore he wanted water to administer the same. It was given to him. Thereafter, she followed and went to the place where Yogesh was lying. Ajay (PW4) sprinkled water on the face of Yogesh. Yet he did not regain consciousness and therefore the members of the family of Yogesh were called and on that mother and sister of Yogesh arrived at the spot. Thereafter Yogesh was shifted to the hospital.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
9 apeal263.268.06.odt
11. Evidence of Rekha (PW2), mother of the deceased, shows that when she reached to the spot, she noticed Yogesh was lying on the ground and both the accused were standing nearby. According to her evidence, accused Anwar claimed that he beat Yogesh and she can do whatever she wants. As per her evidence, Anwar and Ajay with the help of Omprakash took Yogesh to Chandsi hospital. There it was advised that he should be shifted to the Government Medical College. Therefore, Yogesh was taken to the said hospital where the doctors declared Yogesh to be dead. What is important is that in the evidence she claimed that she submitted the report of the incident at the Medical College and Hospital's booth. Her evidence is very clear in that behalf. She does not state that only an information was given about the death of Yogesh at police booth. She asserts that she reported the incident at Medical College Police booth. In my view, there is remarkable difference in giving an intimation about the death and reporting the incident to the police. Giving intimation to police about death may be cryptic one. However, reporting the incident always have some details. It was the duty of the prosecution to place on record what was the incident that was reported. Even when the intimation about the death is given which does not ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 10 apeal263.268.06.odt disclose any cognizable offence, the Code takes care thereof. Under such situation, the police authorities are under the bounden duty to record accidental death under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the police are required to inquire about the said unnatural death. During inquiry, it is quite possible that the inquiry officer may collect some other information or may receive any other report disclosing commission of cognizable offence and on that he could register the offence punishable under the relevant provisions of the IPC. What is important is that the prosecuting agency should not withhold any information and/or any report that is submitted to it. How it should be appreciated is the duty of the Court. An investigating officer is not expected to take side of either complainant or the accused person. He has to conduct the investigation impartially and shall produce the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation/inquiry before the Court so that the Court can pass the verdict in accordance with law, after appreciating the prosecution case.
12. Since Rekha (PW2) has reported the incident to police booth, in my view, it would have been the first information report by the said lady since, during the course of the trial, it was not the ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 11 apeal263.268.06.odt prosecution case that the said was inconsequential as it was disclosing only cryptic information. In absence of this, in my view, the prosecution has acted in somewhat unusual manner in not producing the said information.
13. There is one document on record. It is at Exh.-58. It is styled as medical Information (ममडडकल ससचनन). The said is an unsigned document. PSI Thakur (PW7) claims that when he was in police station, PSI Anand Gawai who was on the police booth at Medical College and Hospital, transmitted the information and the said was reduced into writing by his writer. The said document (Exh.-58) does not fix the presence of accused no.1-Vishal on the spot and it is stated that accused no.2-Anwar gave the fist blows. Though, the learned A.P.P. has heavily relied on this particular document, in my view, the said document (Exh.-58) itself is not admissible in evidence for the reasons;
(i) PSI Thakur in whose testimony this document is brought on record, has not signed this document.
(ii) The writer who has noted the intimation given by ASI Gawai, is not examined by the prosecution.
(iii) ASI Gawai is not examined to point out that the contents of Exh.-58 were transmitted by him on phone.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
12 apeal263.268.06.odt
14. Apart from Rekha (PW2) who reported the matter to police booth at Medical College, Ajay (PW4) has also corroborated that the mother of Yogesh lodged the report with Medical College and Hospital's police booth at about 10.00 to 10.15 p.m. in night.
In that view of the matter, for not placing the said report, this Court is required to draw an inference against the prosecution in that behalf.
Nature of death:
15. The prosecution charged the accused that due to the assault made by them, Yogesh had expired. In order to prove the homicidal death, the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of Dr. Makrand Vyavhare (PW6). Before evaluating his oral evidence and the documents like the post mortem report (Exh.-50), Histo- Pathological report (Exh.-51) and Chemical Analyzer's report (Exh.44), it is required to be mentioned here that it is not the prosecution case at all that any type of weapon was used by any of the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused persons gave fist and kick blows, though the kick blows is mentioned only by Ajay (PW4).
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
13 apeal263.268.06.odt
16. On 05.04.2005, Dr. Makrand Vyavhare (PW6) was on his duty as PM Officer. He received a requisition along with all necessary papers for conducting post mortem examination of the deceased Yogesh with history of homicide. Accordingly, he conducted the autopsy. While conducting autopsy, he noticed whitish froth oozing from nostrils and cynosis and one lip. He proved the post mortem report notes (Exh.-50). In column No. 17 of the post mortem notes he noted five external injures which, according to him, were ante mortem. Those injuries are as under:
"(1) Abrasion present over right forearm, posterio- medial aspect, lower 1/3, of size 2 cm X 2 cm. reddish. (2) Lacerated wound present over right middle finger, middle phalanx, dorsal aspect of size 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep.
(3) Contused abrasion present over right middle finger, dorsal aspect inter phalyngeal joint between, poximal and middle phalynx of size 0.25 cm X 0.25 cm, reddish.
(4) Contused abrasion present over right index finger, dorsal aspect duistal phalynx of size 0.25cm X 0.25cm.
(5) Abrasion present over left elbow, lateral aspect of size 0.25 cm X 0.25 cm., reddish.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
14 apeal263.268.06.odt From the aforesaid injuries, it is clear that those injuries are on right forearm, right middle finger, right index finger and the left elbow.
17. After opening the body, Dr. Vyavhare (PW6) noticed following three injuries:
"1. Under scalp haematoma over occipital region in midline 4 cm below occipital protuberance of size 4 cm X 4 cm X 05 cm. and reddish in colour.
2. Skull vault and base of skull intact.
3. Subarchanoid hemorrhage over right parital region of size 3 cm X 4 cm X 0.5 cm. reddish in colour."
When the doctor opened the body, he noticed that the stomach was containing 200 cc yellowish fluid having alcohol odor, and mucosa congested. So also he noticed there was haematoma over the upper pole of capsule pole of right kidney admeasuring 4 X 3 cm. He preserved the viscera for chemical analysis so also the pieces of organs for histopathological examination. In the post mortem notes, he noted that the opinion was reserved. Requisition by the investigating officer for opinion of the doctor that the injury as mentioned in column nos.19 and 21 of post mortem report could be caused by delivery of fist blows and Exh.-53 i.e. the opinion of Dr. Vyavhare is in the affirmative. ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
15 apeal263.268.06.odt
18. Exh.-51 is the communication given to police station, Sakkardara from the Department of Forensic Medicines, Government Medical College, Nagpur. It is signed by the two doctors namely; Dr. Vyavhare and other doctor who is not examined and he is Professor and Head of the Forensic Medicine Department, Government Medical College. That communication shows that final cause of death as; "Intracranial haemorrhage with intra abdominal bleeding." what is important to note that before giving this opinion, these two doctors examined four parts of the body of the deceased Yogesh, which were preserved by Dr.Vyavhare. Those are;
(i) Stomach with its content, loop of intestine and content;
(ii) liver, spleen, kidney
(iii) one bottle of blood for histopathology and
(iv) piece of brain, etc.
19. Exh.-51 reveals that at the time of histopathology examination, the doctor noticed stomach, liver and spleen were containing 126 mg and 101 mg of ethyl alcohol whereas the blood was containing 103 mg of ethyl alcohol respectively. It is established on record that the deceased was in habit of consuming ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 16 apeal263.268.06.odt liquor. In fact, Sharda (PW1) has seen him always in drunken condition. Omprakash (PW3) and Ajay (PW4) the witnesses who are examined as eye witnesses also state that at the relevant time, the deceased Yogesh was under the influence of liquor. Even the CA report (Exh.-55) also confirms the said fact. This is required to be mentioned here for evaluating the evidence of Dr. Vyavhare because he denied the suggestion given to him that at the relevant time, the deceased was under intoxication. This is really surprising when this Doctor who himself was author of Exh.-51 and Exh.-50 i.e. Histopathology report and post moretm report respectively. Even before conducting histopathology test and report, after the body was opened, this doctor himself noticed 200 CC of fluid having alcoholic odor and in spite of that, this doctor wants that the Court should believe his version that the deceased was not under the influence of liquor. In the cross-examination conducted at the hands of the counsel for the accused no.2-Anwar, this Doctor has denied the suggestion that internal injuries as mentioned, do not correspond with the external injuries as mentioned in column no.17. In my view, this is the last straw given by the Doctor to his own testimony.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
17 apeal263.268.06.odt
20. In that behalf, guidance given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mayur Shah's, case supra, is the guiding lamp for the Court in this Country. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case ruled as under:
" ..We think that this is not a case which should have been summarily rejected by the learned Single Judge and moreover we do not think that the learned Judge was right in observing tat "Our Courts have always taken the doctor as witness of truth." Even where a doctor has deposed in Court, his evidence has got to be appreciated like the evidence of any other witness and there is no irrebuttable presumption that the doctor is always witness of truth."
21. I have already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs the external injures which the doctor noticed while conducting the post mortem so also the internal injuries in detail. The external injuries as noticed exist on the middle finger, right index finger and on the left elbow. The internal injuries as noticed in any case cannot correspond to these external injuries since those are, according to the doctor on occipital region and to the Kidney. Still this doctor wishes that the Court should accept his version only because he is a doctor.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
18 apeal263.268.06.odt In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mayur's case supra, and in view of the locations of the external injuries noted in the post mortem report (Exh.-50), I am not in agreement with the opinion of the doctor that; the internal injuries as noted by him correspond to the external injuries; only because he is a doctor.
22. The suggestions given to all the prosecution witnesses that as the deceased was under the influence of liquor he met with a vehicular accident and suffered injuries, those were denied by them. As noted above, it is not the prosecution case that any type of weapon; hard, blunt or sharp; was used by the accused persons. The nature of external and internal injuries, in my view, does not suggest that those can be caused by fist blows. On the contrary, those are suggestive of the person coming in contact with hard and rough object. In that behalf, Sharda (PW1) in front of whose house Yogesh was lying, has stated that there were stones lying on the spot where Yogesh was found and the road was not having any cement or tar layer. Thus, the place where Yogesh was lying is undoubtedly rough and hard place. In that view of the matter, though the Doctor has denied that the injuries cannot be suffered ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 19 apeal263.268.06.odt due to the fall on such stony surface, I am afraid that his evidence in that behalf can be accepted. It is to be noted that all the prosecution witnesses are saying that the two wheeler vehicle was lying beside the body of Yogesh. This fact also supports my reasoning regarding the possibility of vehicular accident. It is quote possible that on the fateful day when the deceased was under the influence of liquor and was plying the vehicle, might lost his control for one reason or the other and in addition to that it is brought on record that there was dark in the area and having no source of light. Thus possibility of the vehicular accident is not completely ruled out.
23. In that view of the matter, it is really doubtful that the deceased met with homicidal death.
Appreciation of the eye witness account:
24. In this case, there are two eye witnesses; Omprakash (PW3) and Ajay (PW4). Ajay is the relative of the deceased. Omprakash is friend of Ajay. However, merely because they are closely related to the deceased that by itself is not sufficient to ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 20 apeal263.268.06.odt throw their evidence straightway. Their evidence has to be evaluated carefully. Evidence of Omprakash (PW3) shows that when he and Ajay (PW4) were proceeding from his house, they have heard noise of quarrel. Therefore, they went near the said quarrel and it was between the accused persons and Yogesh. According to the evidence of Omprakash, they were beating each other. They were separated. Except this, nothing is stated by Omprakash. Ajay (PW4) states that accused Anwar and Vishal were beating Yogesh by fist and kick blows. Omprakash (PW3) is totally silent as to who was giving the fist blows or kick blows. Ajay claimed that both of them were hitting by fist and kick blows. Thus, on this material aspect, there is variance in between them. Be that as it may. Both these witnesses are blissfully silent in their evidence as to on what part of the body of the deceased kicks and fist blows were landing. As observed in the earlier part of this judgment Exh.-27 is silent about kick blows and Exh.-58 is silent about the presence of Vishal.
25. Merely because the witnesses are coming and deposing before the Court, the Court is not under an obligation to accept their evidence, if their evidence do not inspire confidence. In my ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 21 apeal263.268.06.odt view, this is one of such case. The evidence of these two witnesses is reveals that after they noticed that Yogesh fell on the ground, they went to the house of Sharda (PW1) for water. It is quite a natural reaction on the part of these two witnesses to provide water in order to make attempt for gaining the senses of Yogesh. Their presence in the house of Sharda is confirmed by Sharda herself. When they reached to the house of Sharda and demanded water, she asked as to for what purpose water is required. In my view, this was the most natural human reaction on her part. Interestingly, the answer given to her by these two witnesses was that they require water because Yogesh was lying in unconscious state in front of her house.
26. Sharda (PW1) is silent in her evidence at this stage that anything was informed to her by these two witnesses about the 7assault. Sharda then inquired Omprakash (PW3) regarding cause of unconsciousness and the answer given to this lady who provided water to these two witnesses was that they do not know the reason of unconsciousness and it was further informed to her that when they were passing, they noticed Yogesh lying and therefore they came to her house for water. If really these two ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 ::: 22 apeal263.268.06.odt witnesses have seen rains of kick and fist blows on the body of the deceased, they would not have missed to point out the said fact to Sharda when the cause for unconsciousness was specifically asked for by her. Omprakash (PW3) and Ajay (PW4) were all the time with Yogesh right from sprinkling of water on his face till he was declared dead in the Medical College and Hospital. Not only that, as per the evidence of Ajay (PW4), he accompanied Rekha (PW2) to the Police Station, Sakkardara. Their statements are recorded on the next day. When Ajay (PW4) was present in the police station at night hours along with mother of the deceased and when he has witnessed the incident of assault by kick and fist blows, keeping silence at Police Station in that behalf is rather not only unusual but gives serious blow to the prosecution case. The prosecution has not pointed out any motive. In fact, there was no enmity between the deceased and the accused persons. Nobody knows as to how the incident has started.
27. In view of this, I am afraid that version of these two prosecution witnesses can be of any help to the prosecution even for convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::
23 apeal263.268.06.odt Conclusion:
28. The conspectus of the aforesaid discussion leads me to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal Nos. 263/2006 and 268/2006 are allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order of conviction dated 04.05.2005 passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.304/2005 thereby convicting the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appellants- Vishal alias Gullu s/o Vijay Srivastava and Anwar Khan s/o Mukim Khan are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) Bail bonds of the appellants stand
cancelled.
(v) The fine amount be refunded to the
appellants.
(vi) Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate appointed by this
Court graciously submits that the professional charges which he will be receiving from the Legal Aid Committee, which are quantified at Rs.5000/-, shall be donated to the District Bar Association, Nagpur.
JUDGE kahale ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2018 01:22:11 :::