Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Rajkumar Kerba Dhanade on 24 July, 2015
Author: A.I.S. Cheema
Bench: S.S. Shinde, A.I.S. Cheema
cria413.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.413 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Georai,
Tq-Georai, Dist-Beed.
...APPELLANT
(Original Complainant)
VERSUS
Rajkumar s/o Kerba Dhanade,
Age-35 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Borol, Tq-Devani,
Dist-Latur.
...RESPONDENT
(Original Accused)
...
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, appointed as Special Public
Prosecutor for Appellant.
Mr. M.A. Tandale Advocate for Respondent.
...
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.97 OF 2005
Laxman s/o Dadarao Karande,
Age-60 years, Occu:Advocate,
R/o-Main Road, Georai,
Tq-Georai, Dist-Beed.
...PETITIONER
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::
cria413.05
2
VERSUS
1) Rajkumar s/o Kerba Dhanade,
Age-37 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Borol, Tq-Devani,
Dist-Latur.
2) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Georai,
Tq-Georai, Dist-Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Accused)
...
Mr. Y.K. Bobade Advocate holding for Mr. K.J.
Suryawanshi Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. M.A. Tandale Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, appointed as Special Public
Prosecutor for Respondent No.2.
...
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2005
Anup s/o Jivanlala Mundada,,
Age-30 years, Occu:Business,
R/o-Plot No.225 (MIG) Mahada Colony,
Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER
(Original Complainant)
VERSUS
1) Rajkumar s/o Kerba Dhanade,
Age-37 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Borol, Tq-Devani,
Dist-Latur,
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::
cria413.05
3
2) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Law and Judiciary Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
...RESPONDENTS
(Original Accused)
...
Mr. A.N. Nagargoje Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. Jyoti H. Patki Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, appointed as Special Public
Prosecutor for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 16TH JUNE,2015.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 24TH JULY, 2015.
JUDGMENT [PER A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.:
1. The State has filed the present Criminal
Appeal No.413 of 2005 against acquittal of
Respondent - original accused Rajkumar Dhanade.
Criminal Revision No.97 of 2005 came to be filed
by Laxman Karande, the father of deceased Victim
Nilesh Karande, while Criminal Revision No.102 of
2005 was filed by injured PW-3 Anup Mundada. The
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::
cria413.05
4
Respondent -accused was prosecuted for the murder
of Nilesh Karande and attempt to commit murder of
PW-3 Anup, in Sessions Case No.41 of 2002 and was
acquitted of both the charges by Ist Ad-hoc
Additional Sessions Judge, Beed on 30th December
2004.
Case of Prosecution
2. In a nut-shell the case of prosecution is
as under:
(A). On 10th January 2002 victim Nilesh was
brought to the Rural Hospital Georai, Dist-Beed.
Doctor at Georai found Nilesh to be dead when he
was brought to the hospital in auto rickshaw. In
another auto rickshaw, injured PW-3 Anup Mundada
was also taken to the same hospital but looking to
his injuries, Doctor forwarded him to Government
Hospital at Beed. Police Inspector Ramesh Ghorale
(PW-21) reached the hospital at Georai and came to
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::
cria413.05
5
know about victim Nilesh to be brought dead. He
got the Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit 15) done and
took steps to get Post-mortem done. He came to
know that colleague of the dead, in injured
condition, had been taken to Government Hospital,
Beed. P.I. proceeded to Beed. At Beed, the injured
PW-3 Anup was operated upon. In the course of
night after the operation, P.I. - Ghorale
recorded statement of injured Anup at about 1.10
a.m. after the doctor examined and certified him.
The said statement was then forwarded to the
P.S.O. at Police Station, Georai and in the same
night offence came to be registered at 4.30 a.m.
(vide Exhibit 28). In the morning of 11th January
2002 P.I. Ghorale recorded Spot Panchanama
(Exhibit 24) between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. Inter alia
blood stained mud was collected from spot. Before
recording the Spot Panchanama, between 5.30 - 6.00
a.m. police seized the blood stained clothes of
injured Anup (vide Panchanama Exhibit 51).
Statements of witnesses were recorded. In the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::
cria413.05
6
afternoon at 12.00 noon, the blood stained clothes
of the victim Nilesh were also seized vide
Panchanama Exhibit 53 by the Police Inspector.
(B). The accused came to be arrested on 14 th
January 2002 at about 15.15 hours and he was taken
in the custody. The blood stained clothes of the
accused were also seized (vide Panchanama Exhibit
55). When the accused was in custody, on 18th
January 2002 he gave discovery of the blood
stained knife used at the time of incident. Vide
Memorandum Exhibit 57-A the statement of accused
was recorded and vide Panchanama Exhibit 57-B, the
knife came to be discovered.
(C). The post-mortem was done on the dead body
of the victim Nilesh on 10th January 2002 itself
between 10.30 - 11.30 p.m. He had died due to stab
injury. Police collected the post-mortem report
(Exhibit 60). When the accused was arrested on 14 th
January 2002, he was also got examined for his
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::
cria413.05
7
injuries from one Dr. Vinod at Civil Hospital,
Beed. It was found that he had injuries which were
possible in scuffle. Police also collected medical
certificate (Exhibit 69) of injuries of the
injured Anup from Civil Hospital, Beed from Dr.
Upendra Kulkarni (PW-18).
(D). In the course of investigation, police
came to know that the accused after the incident
which took place near gate of the Shetkari
Sahakari Ginning Mill, which also had Cotton
Federation in same premises at Georai, had run up
to another mill namely Somani Ginning Factory at
Padalshingi and taking help from some persons
there, had travelled in Jeep to Beed where he also
called for his family. Police recorded statements
of persons with whose help the accused had gone to
Beed and met an Advocate through a friend Ganesh.
Police collected evidence from one Madhuban Lodge,
Beed where in the concerned night accused went and
stayed for some time with his family.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::
cria413.05
8
(E). Regarding the actual incident,
prosecution found in the investigation that the
deceased Nilesh wanted receipt regarding cotton he
had supplied and accused, who was working at the
Federation as a grader, was not available on the
day concerned when Nilesh went to the factory and
Nilesh was waiting there. At that time PW-3 Anup,
who had acquaintance with the deceased and who
lives in Aurangabad, had gone to Georai for his
work and went to meet the deceased. As they had to
wait for accused, they went and had food at Hotel
Gulmohar, which is near the factory. At about 6.00
p.m. when the deceased and PW-3 Anup went back to
the factory, the accused was standing near heap of
cotton. Deceased Nilesh asked regarding the
receipt of cotton. At that time exchange of words
started between the deceased and the accused.
Accused was saying that he would grade the cotton
on lower side and cause loss to the deceased.
After the quarrel started, the deceased, the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::
cria413.05
9
accused and PW-3 came outside the gate of the
factory. Near the gate also the quarrel continued
and in the course of the quarrel, accused slapped
Nilesh and PW-3 Anup reacted, giving back two
slaps to the accused. Then the accused took out a
button knife from his pocket and hit Nilesh with
the same in his chest. Blood started oozing out.
When the accused was about to assault the deceased
again, PW-3 Anup intervened and in the result,
the accused hit knife in the abdomen of victim
Anup causing bleeding injury. His intestine came
out. Anup tried to catch hold of the accused and
at that time the accused gave another knife blow
to Anup on his ribs. Thereafter the accused ran
away. The incident was seen by the watchman of the
gate of the mill, PW-4 Suresh @ Baban Tonpe, who
ran to nearby STD Booth which was near Gulmohar
Hotel, at which place already supervisor of the
mill Ankush Mulay (PW-5) was there dialing and
told him about the incident. PW-4 Suresh, PW-5
Ankush Mulay and PW-6 Kailas Sutar and others who
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:56 :::
cria413.05
10
were there near the spot noticed accused running
away.
Charge-sheet filed
3. The prosecution found sufficient evidence
to charge sheet the accused and the charge-sheet
was filed and the case came to be committed to the
Court of Sessions. Charge was framed under Section
302, 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in
brief). The accused pleaded not guilty. The
defence of the accused, in brief, is that the
deceased Nilesh and PW-3 Anup along with two other
persons were at the Beer Bar near the mill and
they had consumed liquor and quarrel took place
between them. They had come out of the Beer Bar
and near the factory, the incident took place
wherein those two other persons caused the
injuries which (according to the defence) are
being attributed to the accused.
4. The trial Court recorded evidence of 21
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
11
witnesses. The accused examined one defence
witness Naib Tahsildar Ganpat Yedke, who recorded
dying declaration of Anup on 11th January 2002 in
the morning. After considering the oral and
documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted
the accused of all the charges.
Arguments
5. We have heard counsel for both sides in
these matters. The State, injured Anup as well as
father of the victim, who have filed these
matters, claim that the Judgment of acquittal is
not at all maintainable. According to them, the
evidence has not been properly appreciated. There
was no reason to discard the cogent and reliable
evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
There was direct evidence available of PW's 3 to 6
regarding incident. PW-4 had witnessed the
complete incident while PW's 5 and 6 had partly
seen the same. The documentary and medical
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
12
evidence fully supported the prosecution. There
was evidence regarding extra judicial confessions
made by the accused after he ran away to
Padalshingi and hiring a jeep went to Beed where,
with the help of a friend, he had contacted an
Advocate for advice. There was no reason for so
many persons to speak against the accused. PW-3
Anup was grievously injured in the incident and
had no axe to grand against the accused and there
was no reason to disbelieve him. There was no
enmity between the witnesses and the accused for
the witnesses to speak against the accused.
Presence of PW's 3 to 6 near the spot was natural.
The incident suddenly occurred and trial Court
wrongly discarded the evidence. People who
gathered at the spot after the incident had helped
the deceased and injured to take first to the
Primary Health Center Georai. Doctor had rushed
the injured Anup to Beed and the persons helping
the injured, took him to hospital at Beed. The
people who helped, did not even know the injured
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
13
at that time. While admitting PW-3 Anup at the
hospital at Beed, in the record name of one
Praveen Sharma was recorded as a person who
brought him. The victim did not even know this
Praveen Sharma but defence had been taken as if
this Praveen Sharma and one businessmen of cotton
at Georai had grievance against the accused and
they brought about false case against the accused.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
prosecution has submitted that the Appeal needs to
be allowed and the accused should be convicted of
the offences.
6. The learned counsel for the Respondent
-accused submitted that the case of the
prosecution was not reliable. One Praveen Sharma
and other businessmen who were dealing in cotton
at Georai, had differences with the accused and
after the incident occurred for which two unknown
persons were responsible, the blame has been put
on the accused. It has been submitted that the FIR
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
14
was not registered in the concerned night between
10th - 11th January 2002 and it was created
subsequently because copy of the FIR was sent to
the J.M.F.C. only on 14th January 2002 and not
within 24 hours as required by Section 157 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.").
The learned counsel for the accused submitted that
the witnesses were not reliable. PW-3 Anup was not
knowing the accused and although accused was named
in the FIR which was recorded in the night at
about 1.00 a.m., he did not name the accused in
the dying declaration which was recorded by the
Naib Tahsildar in the morning at about 9.00 a.m.
Although PW-3 Anup claimed that when victim was
stabbed, his shirt got torn, the shirt before the
Court did not have such tear. The trial Court
rightly discussed the evidence and found that
there were various contradictions and omissions
and the witnesses were not found to be reliable.
The trial Court has discarded the evidence of the
witnesses from Somani Ginning factory also. The
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
15
extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence
and should not be relied on. The witness from
Madhuban Lodge PW-16 Kishor Kadam had not
supported the prosecution and was hostile. The
learned counsel supported reasonings recorded by
the trial Court to claim that the reasonings
recorded by the trial Court are possible view and
thus according to the counsel, the Appeal and
Revisions deserve to be rejected.
7. The counsel for the accused referred to
the case of State of Orissa vs. Mr. Brahmananda
Nanda, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2488(1), the
case of Peddireddy Subbareddi and others vs. State
of A.P., reported in 1991 Cri. L.J. 1391, the case
of Anok Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in
A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 598, the case of Rama Gopal Pawar
vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 All
M.R. (Cri) 2393, and the case of Mukteshwar and
another vs. The State, reported in 2004 Cri. L.J.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
16
1335, to submit regarding appreciation of the
evidence of witnesses and delay in F.I.R.
. We have gone through these Judgments,
which are based on the facts of those matters.
8. The counsel for accused further referred
to the case of Murlidhar alias Gidda and another
vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2014 Cri. L.J.
2365. The counsel submitted that this Court should
not disturb the findings of the trial Court if the
findings were possible view of the evidence. In
this Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after
referring to the earlier Judgments, it has been
observed in Para 12 as under:-
" This Court has consistently held that in
dealing with appeals against acquittal, the
appellate Court must bear in mind the
following: (i) There is presumption of
innocence in favour of an accused person
and such presumption is strengthened by the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
17
order of acquittal passed in his favour by
the trial court, (ii) The accused person is
entitled to the benefit of reasonable
doubt when it deals with the merit of the
appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the
power of the appellate court in considering
the appeals against acquittal are as
extensive as its powers in appeals against
convictions but the appellate court is
generally loath in disturbing the finding
of fact recorded by the trial court. It is
so because the trial court had an advantage
of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses.
If the trial court takes a reasonable view
of the facts of the case, interference by
the appellate court with the judgment of
acquittal is not justified. Unless, the
conclusions reached by the trial Court are
palpably wrong or based on erroneous view
of the law or if such conclusions are
allowed to stand, they are likely to result
in grave injustice, the reluctance on the
part of the appellate court in interfering
with such conclusions is fully justified,
and (iv) Merely because the appellate court
on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the
evidence is inclined to take a different
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
18
view, interference with the judgment of
acquittal is not justified if the view
taken by the trial court is a possible
view. The evenly balanced views of the
evidence must not result in the
interference by the appellate court in the
judgment of the trial Court."
. We are keeping the above observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view. In the matter
of State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh, reported in
A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1998(1), the observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court show that the Supreme Court
could look into the facts whether the acquittal is
perverse in the sense that no reasonable person
would come to those conclusions, or if the
acquittal is manifestly illegal or grossly unjust.
Opportunity given to address on Sentence
9. At the time of arguments, we had asked
the counsel for both sides to address the Court in
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
19
the alternative also. We had told the counsel that
suppose we come to the conclusion that offence is
proved, what would they like to submit regarding
the sentence. We gave opportunity to the counsel
for both sides to address on the said count also.
10. Having heard counsel for both sides, we
have carefully gone through the whole record of
this matter.
. The Points for Consideration are:
(1) Whether prosecution proved that the
accused committed murder of Nilesh Karande
and also attempted to commit murder of PW-3
Anup Mundada?
(2) Whether the Judgment of the trial
Court is maintainable and if not what
should be the Order?
The Incident
11. Material witnesses regarding incident are
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
20
PW's 3 to 6. For better appreciation, the evidence of
these witnesses needs to be considered together.
Evidence of PW-3 Anup shows that he was knowing
deceased Nilesh since 4-5 years. Anup resides at
Aurangabad. He is a graduate and is a businessman.
He and Nilesh used to meet each other whenever
Anup used to go Georai or Nilesh used to go to
Aurangabad. They had friendly relations. Anup is
in business of iron racks. On 10th January 2002 he
had gone for this purpose to the place of one
Bandu Seth Somani at Georai. He finished his work
at that place at about 2.30 - 3.00 p.m. and went
to the house of Nilesh. From family, he came to
know that Nilesh had gone to the ginning factory.
PW-3 Anup also came to the ginning factory which
is to the south of Georai. Anup has deposed that
he saw that Nilesh was standing at the gate of the
ginning factory. They met and talked. As they had
not taken meal, they went to Gulmohar Hotel, a
Dhaba which was nearby, at about 3.30 p.m. They
sat at the hotel till about 6.00 p.m. as the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
21
accused grader Dhanade was not available and was
to come by that time. According to PW-3 Anup they
were at that hotel for about 2 - 2½ hours and
thereafter on motorcycle they came back to the
ginning factory which was at about one furlong. It
was about 6.30 p.m. by this time. PW-3 Anup states
that they saw the accused standing near a heap of
cotton. PW-3 Anup identified the accused before
the Court. According to him, he and Nilesh went
near the accused. Coolies were working there.
Nilesh had shown the accused who was grader to
this witness. He deposed that time was about 6.45
p.m. and there was light in the premises. The
evidence is that Nilesh demanded receipt from the
accused and the accused told Nilesh that he would
grade the cotton at lower level and cause damage
to Nilesh. There was exchange of words between the
accused and victim Nilesh. This happened when they
were near the heap of cotton. This quarrel
attracted PW-4 Suresh @ Baban Tonpe who was at
gate of the ginning mill/factory as well as PW-5
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
22
Ankush Mulay, the supervisor who had come for work
at the ginning factory. PW-4 Suresh @ Baban has
deposed that at about 6.00 p.m. He put on all the
lights of the ginning premises and he was near the
gate. He has deposed that at about 6.30 p.m. he
noticed Nilesh along with his friend was there and
Nilesh was demanding receipt from accused Rajkumar
Dhanade, standing near heap of cotton. According
to this witness, the accused told Nilesh that he
would not give receipts. Then there were abuses
and catching and pushing between them. This
watchman started proceeding towards the spot where
such incident was taking place but then saw that
Nilesh along with his friend (PW-3) and accused
were proceeding towards the gate and all of them
came to the gate and also came out of the gate.
Now if the evidence of PW-5 Ankush is perused, it
corroborates, as even this witness says that
although on that day ginning mill was not working
as machine work was going on, he had come for
work. He deposed that he was sitting in his office
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
23
doing work when he heard noise from outside. Time
was about 6.00 - 6.30 p.m. The noise of quarrel
was going on and he noticed that there were three
persons, the victim Nilesh Karande, his friend and
accused. Even this witness has stated that while
so quarreling these persons came outside the gate.
12. The evidence further is that outside the
gate of the ginning factory also the quarrel
continued. The evidence of PW-3 Anup is that there
was exchange of words and abuses were going on and
the accused slapped on the cheek of Nilesh and
because of which he got angry and in return this
witness gave two slaps to the accused. PW-3 has
deposed that when this incident occurred, they
were at about 30 - 35 ft. from the gate. PW-3 Anup
has deposed that after such exchange of slaps, the
accused took out the knife from his pocket and
assaulted on the right middle side of the chest of
Nilesh and then withdrew the knife from the chest
where after blood came out and the shirt had got
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
24
cut. This evidence of PW-3 is corroborated by PW-4
Suresh who has deposed that he tried to resolve
the quarrel from some distance after these persons
had come out of the gate. He has also deposed that
accused gave slap to Nilesh and the friend of
Nilesh (PW-3) got angry and gave two slaps to
accused and accused took out knife from his pocket
and gave stab in the chest of Nilesh causing
injury to Nilesh.
13. Evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 further shows
that when the accused stabbed Nilesh, PW-3 tried
to rescue, at which time the accused gave knife
blow to the abdomen of PW-3 causing injury. PW-3
tried to catch hold of the accused and the accused
gave another blow by knife on the left rib of PW-3
Anup. Thereafter the accused started running away
from the spot.
14. When the incident of stabbing as above
was taking place, PW-5 Ankush who had earlier seen
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
25
accused quarreling, had already proceeded to the
STD Booth which is nearby. The evidence of PW-5 is
that when he saw that the quarrel is going on and
these persons came outside the gate, he could not
bear it and proceeded to STD Booth in order to
give ring to the house of Nilesh. When he was
ringing on phone at that time PW-4 Suresh @ Baban
rushed towards this witness and informed him that
the accused had stabbed Nilesh and also his
friend. PW-4 has also deposed that when he saw
the stabbing, he rushed towards the STD Booth but
noticed PW-5 to be there and told him about the
incident which was unfolding. At this point of
time, PW-6 Kailas Sutar who is labourer and was
near Hotel Deepali, got attracted. PW-6 has
deposed that he was in front of the hotel when
PW-4 Suresh @ Baban rushed from the side of
ginning factory and told about the incident to PW-
5 Ankush who was on the STD Booth, telling him
that in the quarrel between Nilesh, his friend and
Dhanade (accused), Nilesh was lying on the earth.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
26
Evidence of PW-5 and 6, both, shows that when PW-4
so rushed towards PW-5 and told about the incident
taking place, they noticed the accused running
away from near the spot towards Mondha Naka. The
evidence of PW's 3 to 6 further makes it clear
that after Nilesh was stabbed, he fell to the
ground with bleeding injury and PW-3 Anup who had
been stabbed in the stomach, sat down holding his
wound. The evidence shows that blood was coming
out from the injuries of both these persons and
their clothes got blood stained. Evidence is that
PW-5 Ankush called for rickshaw and Nilesh was put
in the auto rickshaw. PW-5 with the help of PW-4
Suresh @ Baban, one Jeevan Dabhade and PW-6
Kailas lifted and put Nilesh in auto rickshaw and
proceeded to Rural Hospital at Georai. Evidence of
PW-4 Suresh @ Baban shows that coolies from the
federation put PW-3 Anup in another auto rickshaw
and proceeded towards Rural Hospital, Georai.
Evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban shows that he
however remained near the spot for discharge of
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
27
his duties (being watchman).
15. The cross-examination of PW-5 Ankush
brought on record the fact that after admitting
Nilesh at the hospital, this witness was there for
about half an hour. According to the witness, he
had thereafter come home. It was suggested to him
that after returning home he came to know that due
to the injury on chest, Nilesh has expired. The
witness had accepted the suggestion. The witness
however, was unable to name the person who told
him at his house about the death of Nilesh. The
cross-examination of this witness shows that after
the incident, many people had gathered at the
hospital and they were discussing amongst
themselves about the incident.
Police reach Hospital
16. In the evidence of PW-19 Head Constable
Bansi Jadhav, defence brought on record Exhibits
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
28
71 to 73, the Station Diary Entries. Exhibit 71 is
entry dated 10th January 2002 of 8.15 p.m.
recording that the hospital had informed that dead
body of Nilesh Karande had been brought at the
hospital. There is entry of the time of 9.15 p.m.
to arrange for Bandobast at the federation. PW-21
P.I. Ghorale has deposed that Nilesh had been
brought to the hospital and was declared as
brought dead by the doctor. According to him,
consequently he held Inquest Panchanama Exhibit
15. PW-21 Ghorale has deposed that after Inquest
Panchanama, the body was sent for post-mortem. He
came to know that there was colleague of the
deceased who was injured and had been sent to the
Government Hospital, Beed. According to him, he
consequently proceeded to the hospital at Beed.
. Now coming back to the evidence of PW-3
Anup, he has deposed that near the spot of
incident, there was Deepali Hotel and 10 - 12
persons rushed to the spot. Those persons took
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
29
Nilesh to the hospital in auto rickshaw and some
of the persons who gathered, took him to the
hospital in another auto rickshaw. He deposed that
when he was taken to the hospital, the time was
about 7.15 - 7.30 p.m. Anup and Nilesh both had
been taken to Rural Hospital, Georai. His evidence
is that seeing his injuries, doctor advised that
he should be shifted to Beed. He was taken to
Civil Hospital, Beed. According to him, he was
operated there for his injuries to the abdomen.
His evidence is that in that night between 1.00 -
1.15 a.m., PW-21 P.I. Ghorale came there and
recorded his statement. According to him, when the
witness came home, he inquired and came to know
that Nilesh had died. The evidence of PW-3 is that
when P.I. Ghorale recorded his statement, doctor
was present in the ward. Anup has deposed that the
FIR Exhibit 28 was recorded as per his say and he
signed the same. He has also deposed that the
doctor has signed the endorsement on the FIR. He
did not know the name of the doctor but deposed
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
30
that endorsement was made by doctor in his
presence. This evidence is corroborated by P.I.
Ghorale also, who deposed that he took opinion of
the medical officer if Anup was in condition to
make his statement and thereafter recorded
Exhibit 28. Even the P.I. has proved the
endorsement of the doctor. The endorsement of the
doctor even after recording of the statement has
been proved by P.I. Ghorale.
Discussing Evidence of PW's 3 to 6
17. The learned counsel for the accused
referred to the cross-examination of PW's 3 to 6
to argue that there were various contradictions
and omissions and the conduct of these witnesses
was such that they were not reliable. This
argument appears to have weighed with the trial
Court. As such, it would be appropriate to discuss
the evidence of these witnesses.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
31
18. Re: Hole or not in Shirt Article 9: In
the course of evidence, PW-3 deposed that when
Nilesh was stabbed, his shirt got cut. The witness
identified the clothes of Nilesh as well as
himself and the accused in the course of his
evidence. The learned counsel for the accused
confronted the witness with shirt Article 9 which
was stated to be of Nilesh, to bring an admission
on record that there was no hole on the right
front side of the said shirt. From this, it is
argued that when the witness stated that the stab
was to the right front side of the chest, the hole
was not there. If the evidence of PW-11 Panch Arun
Govindrao is perused, which relates to the seizure
of clothes of deceased Nilesh and Panchanama
Exhibit 53 is seen, the police did seize shirt of
Nilesh which had a cut where knife was stabbed on
the front side. The shirt concerned did not have
any special marks is matter of record. We have
seen record of trial Court. Exhibit 2 filed by
Police is list of Properties which Police produced
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
32
in trial Court. In it, the description of this
shirt clearly records that the shirt has a tear in
front due to knife blow and that there is hole.
Property received appears to have been entered in
Court records. No objection regarding description
was raised. Police cannot be blamed if after
property is deposited in Court some wrong takes
place or mischief is done. Trial Court did not
check its own records and did not put its own
house in order and conveniently picked the cross
on this count in pursuit to pick holes in
prosecution case. We do not agree with this.
Prosecution evidence on this count cannot be
doubted.
19. Re: Unreasonable expectations/wrong
appreciation of evidence: Learned counsel for the
accused then submitted from cross-examination of
PW-3 Anup that in the cross-examination various
details were asked to the witness regarding which
the witness was unable to say. The counsel
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
33
submitted that the trial Court noticed that in the
examination-in -chief the witness posed himself to
be very smart person with photographic memory and
gave various details of the incident as well as
the clothes and knife perfectly, but in the cross-
examination when he was asked further details, he
pleaded ignorance. The learned counsel submitted
that the witness is thus not reliable.
. Now when we peruse the evidence of PW-3
Anup, he appears to have been asked in a gruelling
cross examination details like, does he have an
idea if police officials (as named in the cross-
examination) had come to the Rural Hospital; had
the persons who were taking him to the hospital
asked him about the incident; could he say in
which jeep he was carried and who was the owner of
the jeep and whether the police had carried him in
jeep from Georai to Beed; can he identify the
persons who brought him to Beed Hospital; what was
asked by the doctor at Beed Hospital etc. etc.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
34
These type of various details were sought from the
witness and when he has stated that he could not
tell about those details, the trial Court declared
(in Para 19 of the Judgment) that the witness was
evasive and although gave minute details of the
events from afternoon till the incident, was
avoiding details in cross-examination and that had
he given the details it would be against
prosecution. We find that the approach of the
trial Court was not correct. One has to put
himself in the place of the victim. The details
regarding before stabbing taking place and when
the actual stabbing was taking place could have
been registered in the mind of the witness. It is
rare occasion when a person gets entangled in such
incident and main incident may leave an impact on
the mind of the person. Details of the main
incident can get embossed on the mind. The same
thing cannot be said for part of the incident
after the witness was stabbed and was in bad
condition. It cannot be forgotten that the witness
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
35
had been stabbed in his stomach and rib and had
bleeding injury where he was holding his stomach.
In fact in the cross- examination of PW-3 Anup, he
was referred to his MLC papers and an endorsement,
where consent was being sought by the doctor that
his small intestine had come out and he was
willing for the operation. The MLC papers put up
to the witness show that by 8.00 p.m. this injured
had been reached to the hospital at Beed. Medical
Certificate Exhibit 69 and evidence of PW-18 Dr.
Upendra shows that intestine of PW-3 Anup was seen
from the injury. With the injuries he had, it is
too much to expect that he would remember details
of time and persons around him who were not even
known to him, when he was being rushed from point
to point in injured condition. PW-3 Anup was asked
(in Para 21) and he deposed that when 10 - 15
persons gathered, he had told that grader Dhanade
had assaulted him. He was then asked if when he
was taken to hospital, he felt that FIR should be
filed. The witness stated that he did feel that
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
36
FIR should be filed but he volunteered that his
condition was not good and so he did not give it.
It would be inhuman to expect that a person who
has received stab injury in his stomach and who
has been injured in his rib by knife and who is
being rushed to the Rural Hospital Georai and from
there being taken to Civil Hospital, Beed at about
32 K.M.s because of the nature of his wound,
should first register FIR instead of seeing the
doctor. Person in such condition, after he has
been so injured, may not have been in a position
to note the various details as the accused wanted
to know. By this itself, we are not ready to
disbelieve the witness as the trial Court has
done. The trial Court in its Judgment (Para 20)
observed with reference to Para 15 and 16 of the
cross- examination of PW-3 Anup and reading the
same with the evidence of PW-21 P.I. Ghorale,
recorded that there were over a dozen improvements
and some were very material. So observing, the
trial court concluded that the witness does not
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
37
deserve any credit. It further observed that
although the witness was in full senses, he did
not try to lodge complaint in which he himself and
his friend Nilesh were "brutally assaulted". Thus,
the trial Court was aware that there was brutal
assault, but still went on expecting that the
complaint should have been first filed. As regards
the alleged improvements, we have also gone
through the evidence of Para 15 and 16 of the
cross-examination of PW-3. Before referring to
what has been branded as "material improvements",
it would be appropriate to refer to the contents
of the FIR.
Contents of FIR and PW-3 Anup
20. If the FIR Exhibit 28 is perused, after
the introductory part, it recorded that on 10 th
January 2002 at about 3.00 p.m. complainant had
come to Georai. He was knowing Nilesh since 4-5
years as they had met in a marriage and were on
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
38
visiting terms. He went to the house of Nilesh and
as Nilesh was not at home he inquired as to where
he had gone. He came to know that Nilesh is at
federation and so he went to the federation, which
is near a Beer Bar. Nilesh was standing in front
of the gate of the federation. Thereafter he and
Nilesh went to the Dhaba which was nearby and they
had food there and thereafter on motorcycle came
back to the federation, as Nilesh had to get
receipts of cotton. When they went there, Nilesh
asked Dhanade grader (accused) regarding the
weighment of cotton. Accused did not give any
value to Nilesh and insulting him he stated that
he will grade the cotton on the lower side and
started quarreling. There was oral exchange of
words between Nilesh and Dhanade grader. Then all
three of them came to the gate of the federation.
There in front of the gate Dhanade slapped Nilesh
because of which he ( i.e. PW-3) gave two slaps to
Dhanade, where after Dhanade took out sharp
instrument like knife and stabbed Nilesh in the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
39
chest and grievously injured to PW-3. At that time
when accused was about to give second blow, PW-3
Anup went near and the stab was received in his
stomach and when he tried to hold accused, accused
gave blow in the left rib by the sharp instrument
like knife and Anup was injured and thereafter
accused ran away towards Georai. Thereafter 2-3
persons from Deepali Hotel and labourers from
federation came there and they brought them to the
Government Hospital. The incident took place at
about 7.00 p.m. He was taken to Beed Government
Hospital. Later on he came to know that Nilesh
has died at Georai due to the assault by knife by
grader.
. Now if the above FIR is kept in view and the
evidence of PW-3 Anup, which we have already
discussed, is perused, what is tried to be shown
by the accused as material contradictions or
omissions when considered, it can be seen that
these are matters more of details than the actual
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
40
incident. FIR is not an encyclopedia. Nor is it
Examination-in-chief in advance. But the accused,
however went into hairsplitting in the cross-
examination of PW-3 Anup. Accused claimed that
witness had not told the police that they were at
Dhaba till 6.00 p.m. as Dhanade was not available
till 6.00 p.m. Now if the FIR is read as a whole and
the details stated are considered, the time when
the victim and PW-3 met the accused would be
around 6.00 p.m. Another contradiction is claimed
from the evidence that it was not stated that when
these persons went near the accused, he was standing
near the heap of cotton. We do not think that this is
a material contradiction or omission. PW-3 was asked
and he claimed that he had told police that there
were lights all over the premises. This may be
material but looses its significance looking to the
other evidence available on record of PW-4, the
watchman who deposed that he had put on all the lights
of the ginning mill premises at 6.00 p.m. Spot
Panchnama shows that the Ginning Factory had wire
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
41
fencing as boundary and incident took place near
gate. In the cross- examination of PW-4 Suresh @
Baban, it cannot be said that he has been
questioned regarding his evidence that he had put
on all lights of the premises. Apart from PW-4,
the other evidence has also been lost sight of by
the trial Court regarding visibility. It cannot be
forgotten that the spot of incident was not an
isolated place on any highway away from the city
or in a jungle. It was a ginning factory with
cotton federation. The Spot Panchanama Exhibit 24
proved by PW-1 and 2, in the description of the
actual spot where incident took place, shows that
on the northern side there was an electric pole
beyond which there was Deepali Beer Bar. The
evidence of PW-3 shows that the Hotel Gulmohar is
to the south of the ginning factory at about one
furlong. Evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban shows
that near the ginning factory there is Deepali
Beer Bar and near the Beer Bar there is STD Booth.
PW-4 further deposed that these Hotels, Gulmohar
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:57 :::
cria413.05
42
and Deepali, remain open till 12.00 O'Clock in the
night. Thus it was not an isolated place and only
because PW-3 has not mentioned in his FIR
regarding light, and omission on that count is
proved, it cannot be said that it is fatal to the
prosecution case. Trial Court (in Para 35 of its
Judgment) declared as Judicial Note that on 10th
January 2002 there would have been Sun-set "long
before" the time of incident of 6.30 - 6.45 p.m.
Trial Court forgot that it was not a hit and run
case. Evidence showed incident starting some time
after 6.00 p.m. and continuing from inside to
outside the Ginning Factory. Evidence of witnesses
shows that incident must have taken place between
6.00 to 7.00 p.m. As discussed, PW-3 had been
reached to Hospital at Beed 32 KMs. away by 8.00
p.m. after a hop at Rural Hospital Georai.
Information in "Panchang" and Internet would show
Sun-set in Beed District at 06.06 p.m. on 10th
January 2002. Available ancient as well as modern
technological system of keeping data should have
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
43
been kept in view. Judicial Note should, when
possible, be based on science and public data
available rather than surmises.
. Another portion of evidence of PW-3 which
is claimed to be material omission, is that he had
not stated that he saw the grader Dhanade running
away in the light of electric light. The FIR shows
that Anup did state that accused after the
incident ran away. He did not tell about electric
light would not be that material looking to above
factors. There are further details sought from
PW-3 if he had told while giving FIR that Nilesh
had fallen on the earth and that he had sat down
on the ground holding his abdomen. We do not find
that this is material. To repeat, FIR is not an
encyclopedia. When the FIR mentions that Nilesh
was stabbed in the chest and this witness was
stabbed in the stomach, these other details are
fringe details which are not material. Omission is
tried to be shown that PW-3 did not state in the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
44
FIR that he came to know about the death of Nilesh
from P.I. Ghorale. When the P.I. (PW-3) himself
was recording the FIR, if he had told the fact to
PW-3 Anup, it is inappropriate to expect that the
complainant would state that - I have learnt this
fact from you - the P.I. who is recording my FIR.
We have already referred to the contents of the
FIR which say that at the time of FIR the
complainant had been told that Nilesh had died due
to stab injury.
21. Re: Materials put up as Omissions though
none existed: It is argued for accused that PW-3
did not tell police that when they had gone to the
ginning factory some coolies were working there.
If the FIR is perused, it does record that when
the incident took place some labourers came from
the federation to help, taking the injured to the
hospital. Inspite of such reference in the FIR,
the trial Court recorded the evidence as if there
was an omission. Similarly, another omission is
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
45
tried to be shown that PW-3 had not told the
police that accused had told Nilesh that he will
cause his loss. The FIR shows that the accused had
told Nilesh in the argument that he will grade his
cotton on the lower side. This led to the quarrel.
When this is so, to say that there is omission in
this regard, must be said to be hairsplitting. Yet
another omission was allowed to be brought on
record by the trial Court that at the time of
giving of FIR, PW-3 had not stated that there was
exchange of words. The FIR does record that there
was " 'kkCnhd ckpkckph " i.e. oral exchange of words.
. Another omission recorded of PW-3 is that
he had not told that there was catching and
pushing between Nilesh and accused. This, no doubt
is not mentioned in the FIR. However, it is not
significant as in this regard there is evidence of
PW-4 Suresh @ Baban also, where he has deposed
that there was catching and pushing between these
persons. In the cross-examination, there was no
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
46
denial and PW-4 could not be shattered and there
are no contradictions and omissions brought on
record in the evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban. It
has been then argued that in the FIR, like
evidence, it was not mentioned that the stab was
given to Nilesh on the right side of his chest and
that after giving the stab, the knife was taken
out (i.e. withdrawn) from the body of Nilesh. The
FIR does mention that knife was stabbed in the
chest. If at the time of evidence PW-3 stated that
it was to the right middle side of the chest, this
was a matter of details. When the evidence is that
by the same knife after hitting Nilesh, accused
stabbed PW-3, it is a simple matter that after
stabbing Nilesh the same knife was withdrawn from
the body of Nilesh and PW-3 was attacked. It was
not necessary to recored in the FIR that after
stabbing Nilesh the knife was withdrawn. This by
itself cannot be said to be material omission.
22. While appreciating the evidence of
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
47
witnesses, we have kept in view observations of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of
State of U.P. vs. Shanker, reported in A.I.R. 1981
S.C. 897. The Supreme Court observed in Para 32
and 38 as under:
"32. But the mere fact that the witness had
not told the truth in regard to a peripheral
matter would not justify a wholesale rejection
of his evidence. Time and again, this Court
has pointed out that in this country it is
rare to come across the testimony of a witness
which does not have a fringe or an embroidery
of untruth although his evidence may be true
in the main. It is the function of the Court
to separate the grain from the chaff and
accept what appears to be true and reject the
rest. It is only where the testimony of a
witness is tainted to the core, the falsehood
and the truth being inextricably intertwined,
that the Court should discard his evidence in
toto."
"38. To sum up, the mere fact that P.W.7 and
some other witnesses did not admit or had
expressed ignorance about certain collateral
facts was hardly a ground to reject their
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
48
ocular account when there was general
agreement among them with regard to the
subtratum of the prosecution case. In short,
all the arguments employed by the High Court
in rejecting the evidence of the eye-witnesses
and other material witnesses examined by the
prosecution were, with respect, clearly
unsustainable, whereas those given by the
trial Court in accepting the evidence of these
eye-witnesses were weighty and sound."
23. PW-3 was confronted by accused with what
was recorded as a dying declaration by DW-1. PW-3
was shown the document in his cross-examination
and he accepted that the statement was recorded by
the Tahsildar on 11th January 2002. He was
confronted with the contents and accepted that the
name as such of the accused was not written in the
statement. No doubt the document as Article "D"
does not refer to the accused by name but it
referred to him as "Saheb" and that he was grader.
Rather Article "D" which was recorded in the
morning of 11th January 2002 at about 9.00 a.m.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
49
gives more details of the incident which are now
being tried to be shown by the accused as
omissions in FIR. The FIR was registered in the
night itself in which PW-3 had given name of the
accused. No doubt in Article D, name as such of
the accused is not mentioned, but if the evidence
of DW-1 is perused and Article D is seen, it is
clear that DW-1 did not record the said statement
in the words of the witness. He admitted in the
cross-examination that he went on putting
questions to which PW-3 Anup went on giving
answers. DW-1 did not keep any record as to what
questions he had asked. It is not clear if DW-1
had asked PW-3 regarding name of accused. Thus,
only because in Article D name of the accused was
not mentioned, does not make the evidence of PW-3
unreliable. Article D is not dying declaration
under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. It is not
statement to Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
It is also not statement to Metropolitan
Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate under Section
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
50
164 of Cr.P.C. It could be referred at the most
under Section 157 of the Evidence Act to
"corroborate" the testimony of the witness. Like
Section 158, this section does not refer to
"contradict or to corroborate" and so as per
Section 157 of the Evidence Act it can be used to
only "corroborate". Still, even if it was to be
given any value, although PW-3 may not have know
earlier, there are witnesses like PW's 4 to 6 who
knew the accused from before and who have also
identified the accused. Thus, going through the
cross-examination of PW-3, although the learned
counsel for accused made much efforts to show that
PW-3 is unreliable, we are not in agreement with
the counsel for the accused. The reasonings
recorded by the trial Court to disbelieve the
PW-3, we find to be unconvincing.
. In this regard, reference can be made to the
case of Paresh Kalyandas Bhavsar vs. Sadiq Yakubbhai
Jamadar and others, reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1544.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
51
It was a case relating to communal riots. In that
matter (see Paras 9 & 10), some dying declarations
were recorded of the injured who survived. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the evidence
regarding dying declarations recorded by Executive
Magistrate of PW's 5 and 6 of that matter. In that
matter, the witness had not given out names of accused
in the dying declaration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
discussed the evidence and found that the fact that
PW-5 therein was under influence of general
anesthesia and that he was not coherent were some
of the important aspects that were required to be
kept in mind. Hon'ble Supreme Court found in the
facts of that matter that the Executive Magistrate
had not inquired from PW-5 about alleged
assailants. In present matter also, the above
discussion shows that there is no material to show
that DW-1 examined by the accused had inquired
from PW-3 if he knew the name of the officer he
was referring to. For such reasons, as mentioned
in the earlier paragraph, we are not finding fault
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
52
with the evidence of PW-3.
Discussing PW-4 Suresh @ Baban Tonpe
24. We have referred to the evidence of PW-4
Suresh @ Baban Tonpe, which corroborates PW-3
Anup. This watchman, when he came on duty, put on
all lights of the ginning premises. He saw the
incident from the time when the quarrel started
inside the ginning mill premises and when he was
approaching to the victim, accused and PW-3, he
saw them coming out and after they came outside
the gate, when the incident occurred of stabbing,
this witness has seen the same and deposed to
corroborate PW-3. The learned counsel for accused
submitted that the witness was not reliable as he
had come to the Court in the car of the father of
the victim at the time of giving of evidence and
his conduct showed that he could not be relied on,
which has been discussed by the trial Court. When
we peruse the reasonings recorded by the trial
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
53
Court with reference to this witness, the trial
Court raised doubts about this witness by
expressing that it was not explained as to how
this witness could say that the victim Nilesh was
accompanied with his "friend'. One look at the
persons and the incident could have made the
witness assume that they were friends. But trial
Court wanted explanation. Trial Court then
observed that the witness did not explain as to
who he intended to give phone call when he rushed
towards the STD Booth; that he did not explain why
he did not make the telephone call; that he did
not explain why he did not inform the relatives or
police on telephone; or that, he did not explain
the basis for identifying the knife. The trial
Court doubted the evidence of this witness when he
did not accept in the cross-examination that he
had earlier discussed the matter with the father
of the victim although he came in his car. We find
that when such incident suddenly takes place,
there could be various turmoils in the mind of a
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
54
witness, who may in split second take a step to do
something and in another split second get diverted
to something else. Here this witness when he saw
the incident taking place, rushed towards the STD
Booth. May be he wanted to make a call. But then
at the STD Booth he saw PW-5 Ankush already trying
to make a call and immediately witness told him
the incident and PW's 4 to 6 then appeared to have
got diverted seeing the accused running away from
near the spot. If the veracity of the witness was
to be doubted by asking such questions that the
witness has not explained this or that conduct of
his, it would be raising doubts for the purpose of
raising doubts. Had the witness on his own given
the explanations, he would have then been
criticized for omissions and improvements. The
details as were being searched by the trial Court,
were apparently not with reference to the main
incident. A watchman like PW-4 may not have risen
so as to call up the relatives or police. By that
itself the witness does not become unreliable. The
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
55
trial Court questioned that the witness did not
explain on what basis he could identify the knife
before the Court and it was difficult for anyone
to know particulars of a weapon from a distance.
Now if the Spot Panchanama proved by PW's 1 and 2
is perused (which evidence we will discuss later),
it can be seen that the spot of incident of
stabbing from the gate of ginning mill was hardly
at a distance of about 35 ft. PW-4 deposed (in
Para 4) that he tried to resolve the quarrel from
some distance. Thus he was between these 35 feet.
Although the trial Court criticized the witness
claiming that he could not have noted the
particulars of the weapon, if the evidence of PW-4
Suresh @ Baban is perused (in Para 7) when asked,
he deposed that he could identify the knife if
shown. The knife was shown and the witness
accepted that it was the same knife. Thereafter
the Court on its own recorded particulars of the
knife in bracketed portion. In Judgment, however,
the trial Court criticized that the witness could
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
56
not have noted the particulars. The witness never
stated about particulars but accepted when the
knife was shown to him that it was the same.
Witness may recall the instrument by general
impressions also which he may recall. The trial
Court declared that the witness was interested
recording that the interest of the witness
appeared to be flowing from the fact that young
deceased was vice president of the Municipal
Council of Georai. But then, the evidence of PW-4
nowhere refers that he had any knowledge whether
or not the deceased held any such post. The
witness is being doubted because he came to the
Court in the car of the father of the victim. The
evidence of PW-4 shows that he admitted that he
come to the Court in the car of the father of the
victim. Distance between Georai to Beed is about
32 K.M.s. If this PW-4 who is a mere watchman at
the gate of the factory and apparently not a rich
person, took a lift, it would be too insulting to
brand him as unreliable only because he had taken
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
57
the lift. There is no material that State took
care to provide for transport of the witness. It
is a matter of common knowledge that people are
reluctant to come forward as witnesses. This is
something which is cutting through the
administration of criminal justice. Although the
witness is criticized, we find that if the witness
was not honest or had he been tutored, he would
not have given any such admission. The admission
rather shows that the witness is honest, truthful
and reliable. The trial Court further criticized
this witness declaring that the witness claimed
that on day of incident victim had delivered
cotton to the federation but was unable to say
what was the quantity and in whose name it was
provided. It was forgotten that questions on this
count were asked in the cross-examination by the
accused and in that course he had stated that
cotton of Nilesh was received on that day. The
witness was not given opportunity to explain the
basis of his knowledge and when asked further
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
58
details, he deposed that he did not know in whose
name and how much quantity of cotton was given by
Nilesh. We are unable to accept the reasons
recorded by the trial Court for discarding the
evidence of this witness. The approach on this
count, cannot be maintained. The accused was
unable to bring on record any contradictions or
omissions in the evidence of this witness. The
main evidence of this witness regarding putting on
lights of the whole premises and seeing the
incident from inside the premises till the
stabbings taking place at short distance from the
gate can hardly be said to be questioned or
shattered.
Discussing PW-5 Ankush Mulay
25. Coming to the evidence of PW-5 Ankush
Mulay, the supervisor, we have already referred to
his evidence earlier regarding incident. In short,
his evidence is that he is supervisor at the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
59
ginning mill and was on duty on the day concerned
although the ginning was closed on that day as
machine work was going on. The witness has not
stated that it was a holiday as such. The witness
deposed that at the time of incident, he got
attracted due to the noise of quarrel and saw the
victim, accused and friend of the victim
proceeding towards the gate and that they were
quarreling and then outside the gate quarrel
continued because of which he went to the STD
Booth to give a phone call to the house of victim,
at which time PW-4 Suresh @ Baban rushed to him
and told about the stabbing and they saw the
accused running away from near the spot. The trial
Court has disbelieved even this witness. Trial
Court observed that this witness did not claim
that he had seen the actual stabbing but still
deposed that the friend of Nilesh was stabbed with
"knife". But then when the evidence is that PW-4
Suresh @ Baban had rushed to this witness and told
him that the accused had stabbed the victim with
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
60
knife, there is nothing surprising if the witness
accepted this to say that there was injury by
knife. In the cross-examination of this witness,
trial Court allowed it to be recorded (in Para 3)
that he had not stated before the police that on
10th January 2002 he was working in his office.
Trial Court referred to this as an omission for
criticizing the evidence of this witness. Now, if
the original record is perused and the statement
dated 11th January 2002 of this PW-5 Ankush is
seen, Para 2 of the statement to police opens with
the line:
" dky fnukad 10&01&2002 jksth eh ldkGhp thuhaxoj
10 +00 oktrk M;qVhl xsyks".
. This is another instance in the matter
which shows that at the time of recording of the
evidence, the trial Court was not careful when
alleged contradictions or omissions were tried to
be brought on record. Apart from the Public
Prosecutor, it is duty of the Court also to have
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
61
the concerned statement before its eyes if
something is tried to be shown as omission or
contradiction. It is wrong practice being noticed
in Courts to record complete sentence as not told
when, while recording in Court Hall the emphasis
given to witness or the contradiction or omission
is only about a part or word. It is duty of Court
to high light while recording, the part or word
concerned by putting it in inverted commas and
explaining in bracket. When what has been deposed
is also appearing in Statement to Police, Courts
should not allow asking if it was so stated to
police. Witness is not under any memory test.
Courts are under duty to record notes in bracket
in evidence where necessary comparing evidence
vis-a-vis statement to police for proper
appreciation. Similarly a fact not told in say FIR
but stated in Supplementary Statement recorded
soon thereafter, gets highlighted and made capital
of because Court concerned does not make a note in
bracket while recording evidence. For its own
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
62
remembrance and benefit of appellate Courts
factual notes need to be kept by trial Courts in
evidence, in interest of justice.
. In present matter, without referring to police
statement by Court, or drawing attention of witness,
the Advocate for accused was allowed to bring in the
evidence of PW-5 something which did not match with
the record. Trial Court failed to follow directions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tahsildar
Singh and another vs. State of U.P., reported in
A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1012, where Hon'ble Supreme Court
painstakingly laid down how contradictions and
omissions are to be proved. After referring to a
few examples, it was observed in Para 27 that:
"27. The aforesaid examples are not intended
to be exhaustive but only illustrative. The
same instance may fall under one or more
heads. It is for the trial Judge to decide in
each case, after comparing the part or parts
of the statement recorded by the police with
that made in the witness box, to give a
ruling, having regard to the aforesaid
principles, whether the recital intended to be
used for contradiction satisfies the
requirement of law."
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
63
. Thus, it was duty of the trial Court to
itself compare. It failed to do so is apparent.
. Trial Court criticized PW-5 on the basis
that he had deposed that police personnel had
come to the hospital but this witness did not
explain as to why he did not disclose the incident
to police. If the evidence of PW-5 is perused,
although he refers to police personnel coming to
the hospital, there is no evidence that police
personnel came when he was still present. The
witness has deposed that after taking the victim
to the hospital, he was there for half an hour
and then he had returned home. Looking to the time
of the incident and Station Diary Entry Exhibit
71, the cross-examination cannot be so read that
the police had already reached when the witness
was at the hospital. The witness is criticized by
the trial Court that he did not disclose the
incident to the people who had gathered. The
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
64
record shows that immediately on 11th January 2002
statement of this witness was recorded by police.
We do not think that for reasons recorded by the
trial Court, the evidence of the witness could be
discarded.
Discussing PW-6 Kailas Sutar
26.
The evidence of PW-6 Kailas Sutar who was
at the STD Booth and got attracted to the incident
when PW-4 rushed to the STD Booth and informed
about the incident to PW-5 Ankush, has deposed
that he had seen the accused running away from
near the spot. The evidence of this witness also
has been ignored by the trial Court observing that
it was unnatural that after PW-4 saw the incident
and came to PW-5 and told him about the incident
and then this witness could have seen the accused
running away from near the spot. If the evidence
of this witness PW-6 is perused, he has deposed
that he was in front of Hotel Deepali. The STD
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
65
Booth was near this Hotel. The witness deposed
that at that time PW-4 Suresh @ Baban "rushed"
from the ginning and told Ankush about the
occurrence and then when they saw towards Mondha
Naka, they saw the accused running away. Logically
appreciated, when the spot of incident and the STD
Booth near Hotel Deepali were at short distance,
if PW-4 rushed and told PW-5 Ankush about the
incident which was taking place, the time factor
for PW's 4 to 6 would be overlapping to some
extent and in quick succession to some extent, and
there is nothing surprising if in culmination,
simultaneously they could notice the accused
running away from near the spot. We do not find
anything unnatural in the evidence of PW-6 Ankush
when he deposed that he saw the accused running
away from near the spot.
. The evidence of this witness PW-6 Kailas
has been discarded by the trial Court on the basis
that he was not a person who was providing cotton
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
66
to ginning mill and that he does not know any
coolies, labourers at that place and he has no
concern to visit that place. When the witness, who
is labourer and resident of the small place like
Georai, there is nothing unnatural if in the
evening he comes to a hotel or is near the hotel.
His presence cannot be questioned merely because
he is not supplier of cotton to the nearby
ginning mill. His evidence was discarded by the
trial Court observing that it was his version
before the police in statement that he had come to
know that Nilesh was assaulted with knife on his
chest and as such he died, later on. We find that
in the cross-examination of this witness, the
counsel for accused read over portions which were
not deposed to by the witness in his examination-
in-chief and portion was marked as "A" and then
has been proved in the evidence of I.O. as
Exhibit 94. All this exercise was done when it was
not necessary and the witness when asked in the
cross-examination, said that he had indeed told
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
67
the police that subsequently he had come to know
that Nilesh had demanded receipts of cotton from
Dhanade and grader Dhanade avoided to give
receipts and quarreled with Nilesh. When witness
accepts he told a fact to police and it has been
so recorded, there is no further question of going
on to mark and prove portion "A". This is clearly
not in consonance with what is laid down in matter
of "Tahsildar Singh (supra). In the flow of
putting up portion which the witness was not even
denying, in evidence the witness was further asked
and he stated that he had narrated before the
police the fact that after sometime he came to
know that as Nilesh was assaulted with knife on
his chest, so he died. What witness was telling
was regarding he getting knowledge about death due
to incident and not that he came to know about
incident itself later on. The trial Court clearly
misread the evidence and came to perverse
findings on this count.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
68
Subsequent Conduct of Accused
27. Apart from the direct evidence of PW's 3
to 6, there is other evidence also available like
subsequent conduct of the accused. There is
evidence of PW-7 Vaijnath Kale. He was manager of
Somani ginning factory at Padalshingi, which is
part of same Taluka Georai. The evidence of this
witness and PW-8 Ramesh Gholap, the watchman of
Somani ginning factory at Padalshingi, shows that
when the accused ran from the spot, he reached
this Somani ginning factory. The evidence of PW-7
and PW-8 shows that the accused reached that
ginning factory and went and met one clerk Jadhav.
PW-7 Vaijnath has deposed that at about 8.00 p.m.
of 10th January 2002 he was called by that clerk
Jadhav and he saw that the accused was sitting
with said T.G. Jadhav. At that time said Jadhav
informed PW-7 Vaijnath that the accused had a
quarrel with Nilesh Karande (victim) and that the
accused wanted to go to Beed and so wanted a jeep
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
69
to be called.
. The evidence of PW-8 Ramesh Gholap is
that on 10th January 2002 at about 8.00 p.m. he
was working at Somani ginning factory when the
accused reached that factory and went to clerk
T.G. Jadhav. The evidence of PW-8 is that Jadhav
asked him to bring a jeep on hire as the accused
wanted to go to Beed. Jadhav told this witness
also that there had been quarrel between accused
and Nilesh and so the accused wanted to go to
Beed. PW-8 has deposed that at this time when he
saw the accused, the accused appeared to be
frightened and that there were blood stains on the
shirt and pant of the accused. PW-7 and PW-8 have
deposed that they both went to the bus stand at
Padalshingi and jeep was hired. PW-9 Kachru Chavan
was the driver.
. PW-9 Kachru has deposed that on 10th
January 2002 he was at the bus stand of
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
70
Padalshingi and PW-7 Vaijnath and PW-8 Gholap came
to him and wanted that their officer should be
dropped at Beed. The evidence shows that PW's 7
to 9 then came by jeep to Somani ginning factory
and the said officer i.e. accused went and sat in
the jeep. The evidence shows that these four
persons then travelled by Jeep MH-23-C-659 to
Shahunagar at Beed and on the way the accused met
a friend and told the said friend that there was
quarrel between him and Nilesh Karande and to go
and bring his family members (i.e. of the accused)
to the room of his (another) friend Ganesh.
Accused expressed that he wanted to go to his
village and so the family was required to be
brought. The evidence of these witnesses shows
that PW-7 to PW-9 along with accused then went to
the place of one Ganesh. The evidence of PW-7 and
PW-8 is that when the accused met Ganesh, he told
Ganesh about the occurrence of quarrel between him
and Nilesh. Then they met landlord of Ganesh who
was Advocate. Advocate advised accused to lodge
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
71
FIR to police station or be prepared for his
arrest. It appears that after this, the accused
paid the hire charges of the jeep and PW-7 to PW-9
returned. The evidence of PW-7 Vaijnath records
that when they went to house of Ganesh, they took
tea there and the accused informed entire incident
to Ganesh about the occurrence of quarrel between
him and Nilesh. Thus, the evidence of these
witnesses brought on record by the prosecution
discloses that after running away from the spot,
the accused took help at Somani ginning factory to
go to a friend Ganesh at Beed and consult an
Advocate. In the course of such taking of help, he
appears to have made extra judicial confession
about his quarrel with victim Nilesh. We are aware
that extra judicial confession is a weak type of
evidence and in this matter the witnesses have not
stated specific words used by the accused.
However, what is material is the conduct of
accused brought on record by the prosecution which
discloses his guilty conscience and also connects
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
72
him to the incident. The accused had reached
Somani ginning factory with blood stains still on
his clothes.
28. The cross-examination of PW-7 Vaijnath
brought on record the fact that even before
incident there were occasions when this witness
had called for and used jeep of PW-9 Kachru for
travelling between Georai and Beed. The cross-
examiner wanted to test the knowledge of this
witness and the witness gave him the number of the
jeep when asked. The cross-examination of PW-7
further shows that the accused was acquainted with
grader Bookwala of Somani ginning factory and so
he used to go there and so he was known to the
witness. Distance between Beed to Padalshingi
appears to be 19 Kilometers. PW-7 was unable to
tell the name of the Advocate. The cross-
examination of PW-7 confirmed that in the presence
of this witness, the accused had told the incident
to Ganesh, and Ganesh had called the Advocate. The
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
73
full expanse of the incident however came to be
known by this PW-7 only on 11th January 2002 from
the newspaper. This can be seen in view of the
details brought on record in the cross-
examination. Thus the evidence is natural and
shows that when accused was seeking help he told
broad factors about the incident. Inspite of the
cross-examination, the witness could not be
shattered regarding the fact that he was involved
in the travelling of accused from Padalshingi to
Beed and the extra judicial confessions of
involvement of the accused.
29. Similarly cross-examination of PW-8
watchman Ramesh Gholap also did not elicit any
material on the basis of which the witness could
be disbelieved regarding the travel of accused to
Beed and the statements made by the accused as
well as evidence that the accused appeared to be
frightened and there were blood stains on his
shirt and pant. PW-9 driver Kachru was also cross-
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
74
examined. He was questioned to test his memory
regarding where he had taken his jeep on 10th,
11th and 12th January 2002. The witness could not
say. It was suggested to him that he did not know
what police wrote in his statement. The witness
accepted the suggestion. The witness was referred
to his evidence that at the house of Ganesh the
accused had told about the quarrel. The omission
was brought on record in cross-examination that it
was not told to police that such statement was
made at the house of Ganesh. Looking to the other
evidence available and the fact that PW's 7 to 9
have no reason to depose against the accused, we
find the evidence of these witnesses also to be
reliable. The trial Court discarded evidence of
these witnesses terming the same as unnatural that
a friend of accused like Jadhav would inform his
subordinate (?) Kale (PW-7) and colleague Gholap
(PW-8) that his friend was involved in a quarrel.
The evidence of PW's 7 and 8 does not disclose
that Jadhav was any fried as such of the accused.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
75
Rather the evidence is that accused was acquainted
with one grader Bookwala and so he used to come
and thus was known. The evidence of PW's 7 to 9
was questioned by the trial Court also on the
basis that their evidence did not disclose as to
which friend the accused met on the way before
going to Ganesh. If while going along, the accused
told somebody known to him to bring his family
members and if these witnesses do not know that
person by name, by that itself the veracity of
these witnesses cannot be termed to have been
shaken. As the witnesses appeared to be
corroborating the evidence of each other, the
trial Court dubbed the same as cyclostyled and has
ignored it. We are not as such in agreement with
trial Court for discarding the evidence of PW's 7
to 9 who have withstood the cross-examination and
nothing material has been brought on record to
show that they had any special interest against
the accused. The accused, after the incident, was
in trouble and may have reached Somani ginning
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
76
factory for help and once he was there, he may not
have been able to avoid PW-7 and PW-8 from coming
to know about the incident. He may have harboured
hope that as an officer he would get help at the
place concerned.
Stay at Lodge at Latur that night
30.
Evidence of P.I. Ghorale (PW-21) shows
that in the investigation he came to know that the
accused after running away from the spot, had gone
and stayed at a lodge in Latur. Consequently, the
witness says that he had sent PW-20 P.S.I.
Radhakishan Thakur for search of record. There is
evidence of PW-20 Radhakishan Thakur. He has
deposed that on directions of PW-21, he on 21st
January 2002 took along the accused and went to
Latur. They had gone to Madhuban Lodge. PW-20
P.S.I. Thakur deposed that at the said lodge, he
found entries in the register regarding staying of
four persons under the leadership of name given as
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
77
"Vishvas Patil". PW-20 P.S.I. Thakur says that he
got extract of entry of the register xeroxed and
also prepared Panchanama. The witness proved the
Panchanama at Exhibit 75.
31. Prosecution examined PW-16 Kishor Kadam,
serving at Madhuban Lodge. PW-16 deposed that in
the night of 11th January 2002, in the night a
man, a woman and a child had come to the lodge at
about 2.00 - 2.30 a.m. They were charged Rs.250/-.
They however left lodge at 5.00 a.m. in the
morning itself. At the time of evidence, this
Kishor claimed that he could not identify if the
accused before the Court was the same person. The
Special Public Prosecutor declared the witness
hostile and cross-examined him. The witness,
however, claimed that he does not remember if the
person who had come, gave his name as Vishwas
Patil and it was the person brought along by
Police (i.e. accused). PW-20 P.S.I. Thakur proved
contradiction in the statement which he had
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
78
recorded of PW-16 Kishor Kadam at Exhibit 76.
Contradiction shows that PW-16 is not a person who
would stand by truth.
Criticism of FIR - baseless
32. The learned counsel for the accused
argued that the FIR said to be recorded in the
night concerned in the matter Exhibit 28 is
doubtful as in the dying declaration given to DW-1
in the morning of 11th January 2002 did not record
the name as such of the accused, while in the FIR
recorded in the middle of the night he had
mentioned the name of the accused. The learned
counsel also doubted the same on the basis that
the FIR was not sent to the Court within 24 hours
as required by Section 157 of Cr.P.C. Reference
was made to the copy of FIR sent to the Court
which has endorsement of the JMFC about receipt in
the date of 14th January 2002. The offence was
registered vide Exhibit 28 in the night between
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:58 :::
cria413.05
79
10th and 11th January 2002 at about 4.30 a.m.
Section 157 of Cr.P.C. requires sending report to
Magistrate forthwith. The investigation shows
various urgent steps taken by the Investigating
Officer on 11th January 2002 regarding the
investigation. PW-3, the complainant Anup could
not be shaken in cross-examination regarding his
evidence that Exhibit 28 was recorded in the same
night. The evidence of PW-3 Anup as well as P.I.
Ghorale (PW-21) shows that when Exhibit 28 was
recorded, the P.I. had taken opinion of doctor and
got the doctor also to endorse Exhibit 28. The
endorsement of doctor has been proved by both
these witnesses. No doubt, prosecution did not
examine the doctor but Exhibit 28 does show
endorsement of doctor regarding the condition of
the PW-3 at the time of recording of statement
which was converted into FIR. There is evidence of
PW-19 Head Constable Bansi Jadhav who has also
deposed that he was on duty in the night of 10th -
11th January 2002 and P.I. Ghorale had brought the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
80
statement of PW-3 Anup which he registered as FIR
and the said document is at Exhibit 28. Regarding
late sending of FIR to the Court, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the
offence was registered on 11th January 2002, and
12th and 13th January 2002 happened to be second
Saturday and Sunday and thus the Court was closed
and thus according to the Special Public
Prosecutor, the copy of FIR was possible to be
submitted to the Court of JMFC only on 14th
January 2002, which cannot be said to be delayed
as no system of receiving copy of FIR on holidays
is shown.
33. Apart from the above, there is evidence
of PW-1 Ravindra Wadkar as well as PW-2 Sunil
Babasaheb, the Panchas of the Spot Panchanama
Exhibit 24. The evidence of these witnesses shows
that PW-21 P.I. Ghorale had called them at the
ginning factory for Spot Panchanama on 11th
January 2002 between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. Their
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
81
evidence brought on record details of the Spot in
Panchanama, which came to be prepared. The Spot
Panchanama Exhibit 24 shows that it was recorded
on 11th January 2002 between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. The
Spot Panchanama contains brief reference to the
FIR No.8 of 2002 which had already been
registered. There is no reason for PW-1 and PW-2
to depose falsely that they were called early
morning of 11th January 2002 for the Spot
Panchanama. When the Spot Panchanama shows the
reference to the FIR No.8 of 2002 which was
already registered and there is evidence of these
witnesses, we do not find that there is any
substance in the doubts being raised by the
accused regarding the fact that the offence was
registered in the same night of 10th - 11th
January 2002.
. The counsel for accused submitted that
Panch PW-1 accepted that Nilesh was his friend.
Merely because PW-1 was friend of Nilesh, does not
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
82
mean that the witness would be giving false
evidence. Apart from that, there is no reason why
PW-2 also would be deposing regarding the Spot
Panchanama recorded between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. of
11th January 2002. PW-1 and PW-2 were cross-
examined at length. They gave all the necessary
details regarding the spot. It cannot be said that
they were shattered as such regarding their
evidence in respect of the spot. In the cross-
examination, the evidence of these witnesses that
Spot Panchanama was recorded between 7.00 - 8.00
a.m. of 11th January 2002 - the date and time was
not denied.
. Apart from that, there is evidence of
PW-10 Panch Amar Khandagale. He was a student at
the concerned time residing at Georai. The
evidence of PW-10 Amar shows that at about 4.00 -
4.30 a.m. police had come to him and asked him to
come along to the Government Hospital. The police
took him for Panchanama from Georai to Beed to the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
83
Hospital for seizure of clothes of PW-3 Anup. The
accused has questioned as to why the witness was
taken from Georai and why Panch was not taken from
Beed itself. PW-10 was a student of B.Sc. final
and may not have objected to the police. By that
itself the witness does not become unreliable. The
Panchanama of seizure of clothes of the victim
Exhibit 51 shows that it was recorded between 5.30
- 6.00 a.m. of 11th January 2002. Even this
Panchanama refers to the already registered Crime
No.8 of 2002. Looking to such evidence available
and so many unconnected witnesses deposing about
the Panchanamas recorded, only because the copy of
FIR reached the Magistrate on 14th January 2002,
would not be a reason to throw out the case of
prosecution when over-whelming evidence is
available. Compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C.
would have to be judged and read keeping the
proved facts of the matter in view.
34. In the matter of Paresh Kalyandas
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
84
Bhavsar, referred supra, also the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dealt with criticism raised in the facts of
that matter (see Para 7) that the FIR dated 8th
April 1990 reached the Magistrate after some days
i.e. on 17th April 1990 and thus it showed that
the same was brought in existence at later stage.
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the evidence of
PW-4, the complainant in that matter and PW-5 and
considering the evidence and contents of the FIR,
still found the report to be true and observed
that even if it was to be accepted that there was
some delay in sending the report to the
Magistrate, that is not a ground to doubt the
genuineness of the report. In the present matter
also, for reasons we have discussed in the earlier
paragraphs, we do not doubt the FIR which was
filed in this matter by PW-3.
Seizure of Clothes
35. The evidence of PW-10 Amar Khandagale
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
85
shows that police had seized the blood stained
clothes, Articles 6 and 7 from the person of
victim PW-3 Anup. This witness was asked if he
could give details regarding number of patients
who were there in the ward and who was the doctor
treating PW-3. The witness was unable to give
answers to such questions testing his power of
observation. That does not make the witness
suspect. The counsel for accused tried to create
doubt by suggesting to the witness that between
the portion of names of Panchas (in Panchanama
Exhibit 51) and the body of the Panchanama, there
was a gap. The witness denied the suggestion. We
have perused the Panchanama. It cannot be said
that there is any such gap which should create any
suspicion. The witness accepted that the father of
the deceased who was an Advocate, was sitting in
the Court Hall at the time of evidence. So? The
witness denied that he was deposing under any
pressure. Going through the cross-examination of
the witness, it cannot be said that he is
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
86
shattered. Prosecution established seizure of
blood stained clothes of PW-3 Anup.
36. The clothes of deceased were seized by
the police vide Panchanama Exhibit 53 by bringing
on record evidence of PW-11 Arun Govindrao. The
evidence shows that the blood stained clothes of
the deceased were seized by the police on 11th
January 2002. Then there is evidence of PW-12
Vinod Jagtap which shows that after the accused
was arrested, police seized the clothes of accused
also vide Panchanama Exhibit 55. There is evidence
of PW-17 Constable Bhagwan Khade, who has deposed
that on 31st January 2002 on the directions of
PW-21 P.I. Ghorale, he had taken the articles in
this matter to C.A. The evidence is that the
articles were in sealed condition. The articles
were sent along with letter and PW-17 obtained
acknowledgment of C.A. The evidence of PW-21 P.I.
Ghorale is that the Muddemal articles which
required chemical analysis, were sent to C.A. for
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
87
analysis. He has proved letter Exhibit 84 in this
regard. The letter Exhibit 84 read with C.A.
Reports Exhibits 106 to 108 shows that blood group
of PW-3 Anup was group "O". Blood group of the
deceased Nilesh was also "O", while the blood
group of the accused was "B". C.A. Report Exhibit
109 shows that on the clothes of the accused blood
stains were of group "O". The present matter
contains direct evidence of the incident which can
be relied on with or without the support of this
forensic evidence. Incidentally, the forensic
evidence also supports the prosecution.
Discovery of Knife
37. Evidence of PW-21 P.I. Ghorale is that he
arrested the accused on 14th January 2002. While
the accused was in custody, he was interrogated.
The evidence of PW-21 Ghorale and evidence of
PW-13 Subhash Mule discloses that while the
accused was in custody, on 18th January 2002 the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
88
accused stated that he would show where the
concerned knife relating to the incident is. In
this regard, Memorandum Panchanama Exhibit 57-A
was drawn which (after excluding inadmissible
portions), shows that the accused informed the
police that the knife concerned with the offence
he will show where it is hidden at Padalshingi.
The evidence of PW-13 and PW-21, further discloses
that the police along with Panchas and the accused
by jeep went to Padalshingi as per the say of the
accused and they went near Somani ginning mill.
The accused showed a cart track going from near
the mill, which cart track was to the east of the
said mill. After getting down from the jeep, the
accused took the police and Panchas to a distance
of about one furlong away from the road. From a
spot where there was grass and bushes to the east
of the cart track, the accused produced knife
Article 15, taking the same out from the grass.
Thus the instrument was discovered. Regarding this
Panchanama Exhibit 57-B was recorded. This knife
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
89
has been identified in the evidence by PW's 3
and 4 as the instrument by which the deceased was
stabbed and PW-3 was injured. As per C.A. Report
Exhibit 109, the knife also had stains of blood of
group "O".
38. In the cross-examination, PW-13 Subhash
Mule accepted that he was knowing the victim since
childhood and that he had good relations. However,
there is nothing to show that this witness had any
strained relations with the accused to depose
against the accused. Detail cross-examination was
taken, however the evidence read as a whole, shows
that the witness was indeed aware of all the
details of the place where the accused had taken
the police party and gave discovery of knife.
. In the matter of "Paresh Kalyandas
Bhavsar" (supra) a criticism was raised (see Para
6 of that Judgment) that brother of the injured
witness figured as Panch. Hon'ble Supreme Court
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
90
found that it could not be a valid ground to doubt
the veracity of the witness. In present matter
only because PW-13 Subhash had good relations with
the victim is no ground to doubt him.
Scuffle Injuries on person of Accused were there
39. Prosecution has proved another
circumstance. There is evidence of Dr. Vinod
Ostwal, PW-15, which shows that on 14th January
2002 he had examined the accused. The accused had
the following injuries:-
"(1) Laceration over left side forehead
admeasuring 0.5 cm. X 1 cm. limual in
length.
(2) Laceration over L/t side of the cheek
admeasuring 0.5 cm. X 2 cms.
(3) Laceration right side of neck
admeasuring 2.5 cms. X 0.5 cm. Linial in
length."
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
91
. According to the doctor, history given
was of assault on 10th January 2002. In the
opinion of the doctor, the Injury No.1 was
possible by nail and Injury Nos. 2 and 3 were
possible by nail or pin. The injuries were
possible in scuffle. Accordingly, certificate
Exhibit 63 was issued. The doctor denied
suggestion in the cross-examination that the
accused did not give the history as recorded by
the doctor. Thus, there is substance in the
submission of learned Special Public Prosecutor
that the injuries on the person of accused show
that he did indulge in a quarrel with the victim
and PW-3 in which the incident took place.
Injuries of PW-3
40. The evidence of PW-18 Dr. Upendra
Kulkarni from Civil Hospital Beed, brought on
record injuries suffered by PW-3 vide medical
certificate Exhibit 69 from the Civil Hospital,
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
92
Beed. It also shows that PW-3 was required to be
given blood group "O". According to Dr. Upendra
Kulkarni, PW-3 Anup had the following injuries:-
"1. Stab wound on chest infra axillary
region on left side in 7th intercostol
space, admeasuring 2 cms. X 2 cms. X 2
cms., edges were sharp. The wound was
caused within 24 hours next before my
examination with a sharp object. Nature of
the injury was simple.
2. A stab wound on left ilia fossa
interstinal coils were seen. The injury was
admeasuring 3 cms. X 3 cms. and had sharp
edges. This injury was also caused within
24 hours next before my examination with a
sharp object. Nature of the injury was
grievous."
. It is clear that intestinal coil had
become visible and PW-3 in the course of incident
had suffered serious injury in his abdomen. The
evidence of PW-18 Dr. Upendra is that the injuries
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
93
of PW-3 were sufficient, in the ordinary course of
nature, to cause death. The doctor opined that the
injuries of PW-3 were possible by knife which was
before the Court.
Injuries of Victim
41. As regards the victim Nilesh, there is
evidence of PW-14 Dr. Vijay Sickchi who did post-
mortem, report of which is at Exhibit 60. As per
this doctor, Nilesh suffered following injury:-
"Stab wound on chest (Rt) side towards the
sterinum at the level of 4th ICs of size 3
cm. X 1 and 1/2 cm. deep to lung tissue.
Oblique in firce, both tail ends present."
. As per the post-mortem report, the death
occurred due to this stab injury on the chest. PW-
14 deposed that he had collected blood sample of
the deceased for chemical analysis. According to
the witness, the injury was possible by knife. In
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
94
the cross-examination of this doctor also, the
accused tried to create doubt to suggest that
certain words were inserted in Column 17 of the
post-mortem report. The doctor denied. We have
seen the post-mortem report and we do not find any
force in such cross-examination. The doctor denied
that the injuries of the victim were not possible
by the knife which was before the Court.
Search of Trial Court for Witnesses of Periphery
42. Judgment of the trial Court shows that it
doubted which ever witnesses prosecution examined,
while it went on to search for this or that
witness who would at the most have given hear-say
evidence. Trial Court doubted PW's 4 to 6 (in Para
31 of the Judgment) on the basis that although
they claimed to have seen incident they did not
show the spot to the Police and one Navnath had
pointed out the scene of occurrence. On that
basis, the trial Court observed that it could be
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
95
safely concluded that Navnath had knowledge of
incident and he has not been examined. Trial Court
observed that Praveen Sharma who took PW-3 to
hospital was not examined and no explanation is
there for the same. Trial Court observed that
people who took the injured to the hospital, they
should have extracted the information from PW-3
and why they had not lodged complaint. Trial Court
observed that such persons had been kept away from
the Witness Box. Ignoring the evidence of PW-6
Kailas Sutar who was near hotel near STD Booth,
trial Court observed that it had come in evidence
that some of the employees of the hotel had rushed
to the scene of occurrence. The trial Court
observed that prosecution should have collected
their evidence and adduced it before the Court.
Similarly, it observed that father and brother of
the victim who had reached the hospital after
incident, should have been examined and they could
have told as to what they came to know after the
incident. Thus, the trial Court went on searching
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
96
for people who would have given what would be
hear-say evidence. Observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Appabhai and
another vs. State of Gujarat, reported in A.I.R.
1988 S.C. 696 show the various difficulties
investigating agencies go through. It has been
observed in Para 11 of the Judgment as under:
" It is no doubt true that the prosecution
has not been able to produce any
independent witness to the incident that
took place at the bus stand. There must
have been several of such witnesses. But
the prosecution case cannot be thrown out
or doubted on that ground alone. Experience
reminds us that civilized people are
generally insensitive when a crime is
committed even in their presence. They
withdraw both from the victim and the
vigilante. They keep themselves away from
the Court unless it is inevitable. They
think that crime like civil dispute is
between two individuals or parties and they
should not involve themselves. This kind of
apathy of general public is indeed
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
97
unfortunate, but it is there everywhere
whether in village life, towns or cities.
One cannot ignore this handicap with which
the investigating agency has to discharge
its duties. The Court, therefore, instead
of doubting the prosecution case for want
of independent witness must consider the
broad spectrum of the prosecution version
and then search for the nugget of truth
with due regard to probability, if any,
suggested by the accused. The Court,
however, must bear in mind that witnesses
to a serious crime may not react in a
normal manner. Nor do they react in
uniformly. The horror stricken witnesses at
a dastardly crime or an act of egregious
nature may react differently. Their course
of conduct may not be of ordinary type in
the normal circumstances. The Court,
therefore, cannot reject their evidence
merely because they have behaved or reacted
in an unusual manner."
. It has been further observed in Para 13
as under:
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
98
"We have, however, also examined the
relevant evidence. It is true that there
are many contradictions in the evidence of
Devji. He has not attributed overt acts to
individual accused in his statement before
the police whereas he has attributed such
overt acts in his evidence before the
Court. But that is no ground to reject his
entire testimony. It must not be forgotten
that he was a victim of the assault.
Fortunately he has survived. He must,
therefore, be considered as the best eye-
witness. The court while appreciating the
evidence must not attach undue importance
to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies
which do not shake the basic version of the
prosecution case may be discarded. The
discrepancies which are due to normal
errors of perception or observation should
not be given importance. The errors due to
lapse of memory may be given due allowance.
The Court by calling into aid its vast
experience of men and matters in different
cases must evaluate the entire material on
record by excluding the exaggerated version
given by any witness. When a doubt arises
in respect of certain facts alleged by such
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
99
witness, the proper course is to ignore
that fact only unless it goes into the root
of the matter so as to demolish the entire
prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays
go on adding embellishments to their
version perhaps for the fear of their
testimony being rejected by the Court. The
courts, however, should not disbelieve the
evidence of such witnesses altogether if
they are otherwise trustworthy."
. Looking to the above, we find the
approach of the trial Court to the evidence wholly
unpractical. If one sits down to doubt whatever is
brought before him, nothing would be convincing.
In present matter the evidence is much better than
what was referred by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
above matter. We decline to uphold the unrealistic
and unreasonable approach of trial Court to
discard appealing evidence in present matter.
43. It has been argued by the learned counsel
for the accused that the evidence shows that the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
100
job of accused was only to grade the product
brought and not to issue receipts and so the
evidence that the victim went to ask for receipts
to the accused has no substance. The trial Court
(in Para 31 of the Judgment) accepted such
argument to observe that the prosecution story was
unnatural. We are not impressed. If the receipt
would get issued after the grading of the cotton,
the supplier of the cotton would naturally go and
pursue the matter further where the process has
stopped.
Conclusions
44. We have already discussed the evidence.
We find no reason to doubt the evidence of PW-3
who could have suffered death in the incident. His
presence at the time of incident cannot be
doubted. There is no reason why he would omit the
real culprit. Reliance can be placed on the case
of State of Maharashtra vs. Tulshiram Bhanudas
Kamble and others, reported in A.I.R. 2007 S.C.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
101
3042. It was observed in Para 29 as under:
"29. Each of the reasoning assigned by the
High Court, in our opinion, is contrary to
the well settled legal principle. The
witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution, apart from being eye-
witnesses, were injured witnesses. Their
presence at the place of occurrence,
therefore, cannot be doubted. Only because
they were inimical to the respondents, the
same by itself cannot be a ground to
discard their evidences. Although in
accepting the same, some amount of caution
is required to be maintained."
. Present matter PW-3 was not even
inimical. He incidentally got involved and was so
badly injured. There is no reason to doubt his
evidence.
. In the cross-examination of witnesses,
defence taken is that some businessmen and Praveen
Sharma had grievance against the accused. We do
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
102
not find any substance in such defence. It is
unlikely that so many witnesses, unconnected with
each other who had no axe to grind against
accused, would stand up to depose against the
accused merely on the say of some imaginary
businessmen and name of Praveen Sharma, picked up
from the medical papers. Name of a person who may
have out of human considerations helped PW-3 to
reach the hospital, is appearing to be
unnecessarily dragged. We do not find any
substance in such defence although the same has
been accepted by the trial Court.
. While appreciating the evidence, we have
ignored minor discrepancies and we have considered
the evidence on broad spectrum. Discrepancies can
be due to normal errors of perceptions or
observations or due to loss of memory. There are
no set rules in which people react in such sudden
shocking incidents in which the persons may find
themselves sucked. As such on imaginary reasonings
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
103
sitting in the Court, witnesses cannot be doubted
on the basis of supposed expectations of
behaviours. The evidence of witnesses cannot be
discarded on the basis that they did not react in
A or B manner as long as the manner in which they
reacted is possible if one puts himself in their
shoes. Evidence cannot be discarded on unrealistic
and imaginary expectations. If PW-4 Suresh @ Baban
did not leave his point of duty as a watchman, to
go and file FIR or PW-5 preferred to go home after
reaching the victim to the rural hospital, the
witnesses cannot be doubted for their versions of
incident. Many people for various reasons do not
want to get involved, and may not come forward and
file FIR even if they have seen incident. For such
reasons, if their evidence is discarded, the
accused would be most happy persons and the
victims who were struggling for life or were
already dead, would suffer great injustice.
45. For appreciation of evidence, we have
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
104
kept in view, the following observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in (1983) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 217:-
"(1) By and large a witness cannot be
expected to possess a photographic memory
and to recall the details of an incident.
It is not as if a video tape is replayed on
the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness
is overtaken by events. The witness could
not have anticipated the occurrence which
so often has an element of surprise. The
mental faculties therefore cannot be
expected to be attuned to absorb the
details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from
person to person. What one may notice,
another may not. An object or movement
might emboss its image on one person's
mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the
part of another.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
105
(4) By and large people cannot accurately
recall a conversation and reproduce the
very words used by them or heard by them.
They can only recall the main purport of
the conversation. It is unrealistic to
expect a witness to be a human tape-
recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident,
or the time duration of an occurrence,
usually, people make their estimates by
guess-work on the spur of the moment at the
time of interrogation. And one cannot
expect people to make very precise or
reliable estimates in such matters. Again,
it depends on the time-sense of individuals
which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected
to recall accurately the sequence of events
which takes place in rapid succession or in
a short time span. A witness is liable to
get confused, or mixed up when interrogated
later on.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
106
(7) A witness though wholly truthful, is
liable to be overawed by the court
atmosphere and the piercing cross-
examination made by counsel and out of
nervousness mix up facts, get confused
regarding sequence of events, or fill up
details from imagination on the spur of the
moment. The subconscious mind of the
witness sometimes so operates on account of
the fear of looking foolish or being
disbelieved though the witness is giving a
truthful and honest account of the
occurrence witnessed by him - Perhaps it is
a sort of a psychological defence mechanism
activated on the spur of the moment."
. The observations we have made in this
Judgment while appreciating the evidence, are
influenced by the above and thus we have ignored
minor discrepancies.
46. As discussed, Trial Court did not take
care at the time of recording evidence to ensure
that indeed contradictions or omissions were
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
107
there and if yes to what extent. The accused was
given a free hand and without strictly following
mandate of "Tahsildar Singh", the record was
allowed to be burdened and Judgment influenced.
47. For such reasons, we find the approach of
the trial Court to the evidence wholly untenable
and the same is perverse for various reasons we
have already discussed.
Murder and Attempt to Commit Murder
48. We find that Nilesh Karande suffered
homicidal death due to the stab injury given by
the accused. We also find that accused attempted
to commit murder of PW-3 Anup. As regards the
culpable homicide of Nilesh, the question now
before us is, whether the same could be said to be
murder.
49. As per part "2ndly" of Section 300 of
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
108
Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide would be
murder if the act is done with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause the death of the person to
whom the harm is caused. In this regard, however,
the Exception 4 reads as under:-
"Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not
murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat
of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without the offender having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner.
Explanation.- It is immaterial in such
cases which party offers the provocation or
commits the first assault."
50. In the present matter also for petty
reasons the quarrel started and in the heat of
passion without premeditation, the accused who had
the knife with him (for reasons best known to him)
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
109
suddenly took out the same and stabbed Nilesh in
the chest. He did intend to cause bodily injury
which he knew to be likely to cause death. Thus it
is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. In this view of the matter, the accused is
liable to be punished under Section 304 Part I of
the Indian Penal Code.
51.
As regards sentence to be imposed, we
find that the accused was working as a grader and
was in Government service. In the moment of heat
due to quarrel suddenly the incident took place.
Prosecution has not shown any material which would
show that the accused had criminal tendencies or
that he had any criminal record. In this view of
the matter, it would be appropriate not to award
imprisonment for life as provided by Section 304
Part I of I.P.C. which is one of the options. It
would be appropriate to pass sentence of
imprisonment for ten years which would be
justified in the facts and circumstances of the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::
cria413.05
110
matter. Similarly, for the offence under Section
307 of I.P.C. also, the sentence should be of ten
years.
52. For the above reasons we pass following
order:-
O R D E R
(A) The Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2005 filed by the State is partly allowed.
(B) The Judgment of acquittal passed by the Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.41 of 2002, dated 30th December 2004 is quashed and set aside.
(C) The Respondent - original accused Rajkumar Kerba Dhanade is held guilty for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). In default of fine, he shall suffer further ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 111 rigorous imprisonment for the period of 6 (six) months.
(D) The Respondent - original accused Rajkumar Kerba Dhanade is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). In default of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for the period of 6 (six) months.
(E) Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
(F) The accused shall be entitled to set off as admissible under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(G) The bail bonds of the Respondent - accused are cancelled. He shall surrender to the Bail Bonds immediately. Trial Court to ensure compliance of these orders.
(H) Criminal Revision Application No.97 of ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 ::: cria413.05 112 2005 filed by Petitioner Laxman Karande, father of the victim and Criminal Revision Application No.102 of 2005 filed by PW-3 Anup are allowed in above terms.
[A.I.S.CHEEMA, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/JUL15 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:58:59 :::