Bombay High Court
Appellant : State Of Maharashtra vs Respondent : Sunil Son Of Vishwanath ... on 15 December, 2010
Author: A. R. Joshi
Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1997
Appellant : State of Maharashtra
versus
Respondent : Sunil son of Vishwanath Borkar, aged about 32 years,
resident of Indora Zopda, Near Jetwan Buddha Vihar,
Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur
Mr D. B. Patel, Addl. Public Prosecutor for appellant-State
Mr A. S. Mardikar, Advocate (appointed) for respondent.
Coram : A. H. Joshi & A. R. Joshi, JJ
Dated : 15th December 2010
Judgment (Per A. R. Joshi, J)
1. Heard rival submissions at length on this appeal preferred by the State
of Maharashtra against acquittal of respondent/original accused. Perused the
evidence recorded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Also
perused the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::
2
Sessions Case No. 127 of 1993.
2. The impugned judgment and order acquitting the respondent/original
accused was passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 10th March 1997.
Respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal,
the State of Maharashtra preferred the appeal which is under consideration.
3. Initially, another lawyer was representing respondent/accused.
However, when the matter was taken up for final hearing before us, respondent was
not represented. As such, ultimately, learned Advocate Mr A. S. Mardikar was
appointed to represent the respondent in the present appeal.
4. The facts of the present matter can be narrated as under.
5. Respondent/accused is resident of Indora Slum Area, Nagpur and
deceased Nalanda was residing in the same locality. Allegedly, deceased Nalanda
was second wife of respondent/accused. However, he had denied such relation.
According to the case of prosecution and also according to P. W. 6 Kusum
Shambharkar, mother of deceased Nalanda, respondent/accused was married with
deceased Nalanda, however, was not treating her properly. There used to be frequent
quarrels. According to P.W. 6 Kusum, about five months prior to the incident leading
to the death of Nalanda, she was severally beaten by accused and was admitted in
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::
3
Mayo Hospital and after discharge, she was residing with her mother and a report
was lodged with Police Station, wadi. As such, apparently, relations between
accused and Nalanda were strained and accused was treating her with cruelty. The
fateful incident occurred at about 09.00 am on 26th December 1992 in front of
Jaripatka Police Out-post. At that time, accused assaulted Nalanda by means of knife
and spear-head. He inflicted severe injuries on her person, apparently causing
instantaneous death on the spot. Said assault was witnessed by various persons of
the locality including P.W. 1 Sukhdeo and P.W. 2 Suryakant. Intimation was given
to the local police out-post and police personnel reached the spot including P.W. 3
Kailash, police constable. Said P.W. 3 Kailash saw the accused on the spot.
However, he did not dare to apprehend him as threats of dire consequences were
given by the accused. P.W. 3 Kailash went back to Jaripatka Police Station and
brought other police party including PSI Gotmare (P.W. 4). PSI Gotmare, sensing
the seriousness of the situation as the accused was then armed with weapons and was
present on the spot when the victim Nalanda was lying on the ground in a pool of
blood, directed the accused to surrender to the police and after pointing revolver to
the accused, he was over-powered and was taken into custody by the police. The
weapons of assault i.e. spear-head and knife which were thrown on ground by the
accused were taken charge of.
6. First Information Report was lodged by PSI Gotmare (P.W. 4)
immediately at 10.00 am on the same day at Jaripatka Police Station, Nagpur.
Offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::
4
against the accused. During investigation, statements of various witnesses were
recorded. Then injured Nalanda was removed to hospital, however, was declared
dead due to severe injuries. Seized articles and clothes of victim Nalande and also
those of the accused were sent for chemical analysis. After obtaining relevant report
such as Chemical Analyser's Report, Post-mortem Report and Injury Certificate
regarding injury sustained by the accused on his right palm, investigation was
concluded and case was committed to the Court of Sessions after filing of the charge-
sheet.
7.
During the trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur,
eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution including two eye witnesses P.W.
1 Sukhdeo and P.W. 2 Suryakant and other relevant witnesses who had seen the
accused on the spot with the weapons. Finding the evidence of eye witnesses
untrustworthy, learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the case of prosecution
as to the accused being the author of the incident and murder of Nalanda and
acquitted him by the judgment and order which is impugned in the present appeal.
8. During the arguments, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State took us through the detailed substantive evidence of eye witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and
2) and also substantive evidence of P.W. 3 Kailash, P.W. 4 PSI Gotmare. Learned
APP also placed reliance on substantive evidence of P. W. 6 Kusum, mother of victim
Nalanda. By pointing out the said substantive evidence of the witnesses, it is
submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the factum as to the presence of accused
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::
5
on the spot where the victim was lying on the ground in a pool of blood and factum
as to the accused assaulting the victim by means of weapons has been sufficiently
established beyond reasonable doubt. While arguing this, it is further submitted on
behalf of the State that though there are certain omissions brought on record from the
substantive evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to the effect that even after victim Nalanda
fell on the ground after initial assault on her by means of knife and spear-head,
accused continued his assault on her and as to P.W. 3 Kailash, Police Constable
asking the accused to throw away the spear, the main thread of the prosecution case
as to P.W. 1 and P. W. 2 witnessing the initial assault on the victim at the hands of the
accused and P. W. 3 Kailash seeing the accused on the spot and then rushing towards
Jaripatka Police Station for getting more police help, are the circumstances fully
established.
9. It is further argued on behalf of the State that inspite of certain
omissions which are insignificant and not going to the root of the matter, the main
case of the prosecution as to the involvement of the accused in the assault on
Nalanda and his apprehension on the spot by the police officer P. W. 4 PSI Gotmare
is sufficient enough to bring home the guilt of the accused.
10. Counter to the above arguments, learned Advocate Mr Mardikar for the
respondent/accused submitted that if there are two views possible on the given set of
circumstances, then the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused cannot
be substituted so as to convert the order of acquittal into an order of conviction when
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::
6
apparently there is no perversity in the finding of the trial Court. On this aspect,
following authorities are cited before us :
(1) 1984 (Supp) SCC 624
State of Karnataka v. Venkataravanappa and ors
(2) (2007) 4 SCC 415
Chandrappa and ors v. State of Karnataka
After going through the substantive evidence of the eye witnesses (P.W. 1 Sukhdeo
and P.W. 2 Suryakant) and considering the fact that their testimony is not shaken on
the main thread of the prosecution case i. e. they witnessing the accused assaulting
the victim Nalanda, there cannot be two views possible, only one view is possible
indicating the involvement of accused in the offence as an assailant. This is more so
when he was immediately arrested on the spot by P.W. 4 PSI Gotmare.
11. Another point argued on behalf of the respondent is that there is no
explanation given by the prosecution as to how the accused sustained injury on his
right palm and in that event, the inference is required to be drawn that it was an
injury caused in a fight when accused tried to save himself from the assault. On this
aspect, following authorities are cited before us :
(1) AIR 1976 SC 2263
Lakshmi Singh & ors v. State of Bihar.
(2) 1987 Cri. L.J. 1058
Seriyal Udayar v. State of Tamil Nadu
(3) 1984 Cri. L.J. 1164
Rajendra Singh v. State of U. P.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::
7
On this argument, it is worth-while to mention, what is the injury caused to the
accused and as narrated by substantive evidence of P.W. 9 Dr Prabhakar Barapatre.
The evidence of P.W. 9 Dr Barapatre reads as under :
"I had examined the accused. He was having lacerated wound on right
palm 2 cm into 1/4th cm. It was skin deep. The accused was having
only one injury and accordingly I issued one injury certifricate which
bears my signature which I identify, it is marked exh. 66. I identify the
accused who is now present in the court hall before me."
12. During cross-examination, Dr Barapatre opined, "whenever there is an
injury to the right palm it might have been sustained while defending oneself". The
witness further answered, "Such injuries could be caused while defending or may be
caused even otherwise". This material on record is to be viewed in juxta position of
the defence of the accused. While answering question number 44 during examination
of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C., he answered as follows :
"Que.44 : Have you got anything to say ?
Ans. : I & Nalanda were speaking to each other at the relevant time
Chandrabhan Wahane came there & assaulted me with a knife. While
defending I sustained injury to my right palm. I ran towards my house.
Police had arrested me after I learnt about Nalanda's murder."
13. Even on preponderance of probability, this defence of the accused
cannot be accepted. Moreso, considering the conduct of the accused himself as
according to him, there was murderous attack by one Wahane on him and after
receiving injury to right palm, he ran towards his house, apparently without
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::
8
bothering as to what happened to Nalanda. We are not oblivious of the fact that the
burden of proving a particular circumstance leading to his innocence is not of that
standard on the accused than it is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
Still, on preponderance of probabilities, such defence of the accused cannot be
accepted even to give him benefit of doubt. In that view of the matter, it must be
said that learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in giving such benefit to the
accused and holding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the
accused for the offence of murder.
14.
Another argument is advanced on behalf of the respondent that in view
of the material contradictions, there cannot be any interference in the judgment and
order of acquittal when there is no perversity or illegality in the said judgment. In
support of this submission, following authority is cited before us :
State of Tamil Nadu v. Ammasi alias William
1992 Supp (3) SCC 75
In the said matter, apparently there were material contradictions between what is
mentioned in the First Information Report and the evidence given by the witnesses in
regard to the role played by respondent/accused in the attack on the deceased. In the
present matter, the First Information Report is given by PSI Gotmare (P.W. 4) and
apparently, there are no omissions or contradictions vis-a-vis his substantive
evidence with the contents of the FIR.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::
9
15. Moreover, the basic thread of the prosecution as to P.Ws. 1 and 2
witnessing the assault at the hands of the accused to the victim, there cannot be any
material omission doubting the case of prosecution though suggested to that effect on
behalf of the accused. In the result, this argument cannot sustain.
16. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the respondent/accused that the
incident is of the year 1992 and the accused was charged in November 1993 and was
acquitted on 10th March 1997 and since the date of acquittal he is at liberty till date
and in view of such circumstances, the judgment and order of acquittal may not be
interfered with in the year 2010. Mainly, considering the substantive evidence of P.
Ws. 1 to 6, it must be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in
appreciating the evidence of prosecution in its proper perspective and there is every
need to interfere with such judgment and order of acquittal. This is moreso when it
is also well established that unmerited acquittal also leads to the injustice and in an
appropriate case, it is the duty of higher court to intervene and set right the things,
though belatedly.
17. While parting with this appeal, it must be said that the homicidal death
of victim Nalanda is established and the presence of accused on the spot with the
weapon and the fact that he inflicted assault on the victim are the established
circumstances leading us to reverse the judgment and order of acquittal.
Consequently, the present appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed by
following order :
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::
10
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1997 is allowed. Judgment and order dated 10th March 1997 in Sessions Case No. 127 of 1993 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur is quashed and set aside. Respondent/accused is held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(ii).
Bail bonds of the respondent/accused stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the jail sentence.
(iii). Set-off be given to respondent/accused for the period he was in jail.
(iv). Fees payable to Mr A. S. Mardikar, Advocate (appointed) is quantified at Rs. 1800/- and shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services, Sub-committee at Nagpur.
(v). Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
joshi
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:42:07 :::