Bombay High Court
Ranasaheb S/O Sohanlal Rajput (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 7 February, 2017
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: B. R. Gavai, A. S. Chandurkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2015
Appellant : Ranasaheb son of Sohanlal Rajput, aged
about 56 years, residnt of Athali, Tahsil
Lakhandur, District Bhandara (presently in
Central Prison, Bhandara)
versus
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Bhandara
-----
Shri A. S. Band, Advocate for appellant Shri J. Y. Ghurde, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent-State Coram : B. R. Gavai & A. S. Chandurkar, JJ Dated : 7th February 2017 Oral Judgment (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J)
1. The appellant in the present appeal filed under Section 374 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:48:49 ::: 2 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenges his conviction in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2013 vide judgment dated 26.3.2014. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-.
2. The case of the prosecution as can be gathered from the material placed on record, is that on 27.4.2013, the mother of one Bharat Ramteke - Champabai had taken dinner along with her son-in-law and another relative. After having dinner when the guests were proceeding for sleeping at the house of the daughter of complainant, her son Bharat accompanied them. At about 10.00 pm, the informant heard certain noises near the eating house of one Chindhabai Bhure. The son of Chindhabai informed the informant that her son Bharat was stabbed by knife by a person who was caught by the public. The informant went to the said place and along with her son-in-law, took Bharat to the hospital for treatment. Said Bharat, however, expired on account of stab injuries after which the informant lodged the report. After the offence was registered, investigation was carried out and on its completion, charge was framed against the appellant after committal of the case. The appellant claimed to be tried and at the conclusion of the trial, he came to be convicted in the manner stated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:48:49 ::: 33. Shri A. S. Band, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no eye witness to the crime and that the appellant had been caught and implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. The alleged incident had occurred after 09.00 pm when it was dark and it was not possible for the alleged witnesses to have seen the appellant. He submitted that even the spot panchanama was conducted with the help of search light and, therefore, it could be inferred that there was darkness when the incident took place. Even the recoveries allegedly made at the instance of the appellant were doubtful. It was, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the appellant was liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
4. Shri J. Y. Ghurde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State supported the order of conviction. He referred to the depositions of P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 who had seen the appellant running from the spot. He submitted that members of the public had caught the appellant at the spot of the crime and that there were blood stains on his clothes. It was submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, there was no case to interfere with the appeal.
5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:48:49 ::: 4 have gone through the entire material placed on record. We have also given due consideration to the submissions, as canvassed. The homicidal death of Bharat is not in dispute and as per the post-mortem report (Exhibit 19), the probable cause of death was on account of haemorrhagic shock due to injuries to vital organ.
6. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the informant - Champabai, who was the mother of Bharat, was examined at Exhibit 9. She has deposed that after having dinner with her son-in-law and other relatives, her son Bharat had accompanied them for going to the house of her daughter. On hearing some shouts, she came outside and found her son lying in a pool of blood. She was informed by Uttam Dinkar (PW 5) that Bharat had been assaulted by one Sardar. Her son was then taken to the hospital after which she lodged the report. The First Information Report (Exhibit 11) was registered at 0.30 hours on 28.4.2013. In her cross-examination, she stated that the incident took place at night, but denied the suggestion that there was darkness at the place of the incident. The son-in-law of Champabai - Uttam Dinkar was examined as P.W. 5 (Exhibit 22). He supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the appellant had asked an address to Bharat on which Bharat had told him that he did not know the same. After going at some distance, Bharat had returned near the appellant after which the ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:48:49 ::: 5 appellant assaulted him with a knife on his abdomen. Bharat shouted that the appellant should be caught after which the brother of this witness
- Amardeep Dinkar (PW 6) also came there. The public had caught the appellant and he was handed over to the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was about 10-12 feet away from Bharat and that when he had turned back, he had seen Bharat falling down.
Amardeep Dinkar (Exhibit 23) has stated that he had gone for dinner along with his brother Uttam at the place of Champabai. He reiterated the incident as narrated by his brother Uttam. In his cross-
examination, he stated that there were street lights at the spot of incident in which he could see the same. Thus, the evidence of PW 5 and PW 6 as regards the assault on Bharat, is consistent and corroborates the version of P.W. 1 - Champabai. The presence at the spot also appears to be natural.
7. The appellant was arrested on 28.4.2013 at about 08.30 am (Exhibit 39). According to the prosecution, the sword-stick was seized at his instance. The same was recovered under memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This seizure has been effect near the Bus Stand from a place where waste material was thrown. Considering the location of the place from where the sword-stick was recovered, it cannot be said that this seizure has been effected from a place within the ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:48:49 ::: 6 exclusive knowledge of the appellant. However, this aspect would not cause a dent to the case of the prosecution considering the other material on record.
8. The clothes of the appellant had blood stains. These clothes were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination. As per Exhibit 44, the blood of Bharat was found to be of group "A" while as per the report of the Forensic Laboratory at Exhibit 42, the full-pant, dupatta and bundi of the appellant were stained with blood of group "A". In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant was put a question at Sr. No. 10 as to seizure of blood-stained clothes from him. There is no explanation given by the appellant to the presence of blood stains on his clothes. This is a circumstance against the appellant which he has failed to explain.
9. The presence of appellant at the spot is established as he was immediately apprehended after the incident by members of the public.
PW 9 - Gopal Sonkusre (Exhibit 36) has stated that he was running a pan shop and just prior to the incident on 27.4.2013 the appellant had come to his shop and had made purchase of a packet of kurkure. He has further stated that after about five minutes, the appellant had again come to his shop and was murmuring. He also saw the appellant running after the incident. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had seen the person ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:48:49 ::: 7 running from the back side. He identified the appellant who was sitting in the Court.
10. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that there was darkness at the spot and that the spot panchanama was prepared using search light, does not further the case of the appellant. As noted above, PW 5 and PW 6 had seen the appellant at a distance of about 10- 12 feet and PW 6 has stated that there was street light near the spot of incident. The spot panchanama having been conducted at about 01.00 am on 28.4.2013 and same being required to be prepared in detail, it is possible that the aid of search light was taken for said purpose.
11. Thus, on considering the entire evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken by the trial Court.
12. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
A. S. CHANDURKAR, J B. R. GAVAI, J ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:48:49 ::: 8 joshi ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:48:49 :::