Bombay High Court
Anant Laxman Angre vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 August, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:32733
:1: 63-APEAL-505-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.505 OF 2023
Anant Laxman Angre ....Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, &
2. Sachin Madhukar Parte ....Respondents
-----
Mr. Ashok P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w. Pravada Raut, i/b.
Pranjal M. Khatavkar for the Appellant.
Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Prashant Nayak, Advocate (appointed) for the Respondent
No.2.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 09th AUGUST, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.3.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.746/2009. The Appellant was the original accused No.2. His wife was the Accused No.1. She was acquitted from the case. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :
1 of 15 Deshmane(PS) ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: :2: 63-APEAL-505-23.odt [i] The Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and he was sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for six months;
2. Out of the fine amount recovered from the Appellant, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant after the Appeal period was over. He was given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period undergone as under-trial prisoner.
3. Heard Mr. Ashok Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Swapnil Walve, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Prashant Nayak, learned appointed counsel for the Respondent No.2.
4. The prosecution case is that the Appellant and the first informant Sachin, who is the victim in this case, had a dispute over the parking space. On 17.2.2009, the informant parked his vehicle in front of house of the Appellant. The informant went for a stroll. The Appellant and his wife started quarreling with the informant's wife and father. In the meantime,
2 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: :3: 63-APEAL-505-23.odt one Nilesh Shinde told the informant about the quarrel. He rushed there. A quarrel took place between the Appellant and the informant. The Appellant took out a cutter and gave blows on the neck, chest and abdomen of the informant causing grievous injuries. Part of the blade was left at the spot and the other part was concealed by the Appellant on his roof. The Appellant was taken to the hospital where he was treated. The informant gave his statement to the police in the hospital itself, which was treated as an FIR. The investigation was carried out. The Appellant was arrested. There was a cross-FIR, resulting in a cross-case as well.
5. In the present case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses including the informant, his wife, the aforementioned Nilesh Shinde, the Medical Officer, the panchas and the investigating officer. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial. According to him, he was falsely implicated because of the dispute regarding the parking space.
6. Learned Judge after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the 3 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: :4: 63-APEAL-505-23.odt Appellant as mentioned earlier.
7. The informant was examined as PW-1. He has stated that in the year 2009 he was residing with his wife, daughter, father and a cousin named Ajinkya. He had a four-wheeler. He used to park the car on one or two occasions in front of his house. On rest of the days, he used to park it near F.C. College. Both the accused i.e. the Appellant and his wife were his neighbours. On a couple of occasions, there were instances of quarrel between the informant and the Appellant in respect of parking of his vehicle. On 17.2.2009, at about 7.00 p.m., he returned home from his work. He parked his car outside his chawl and then he brought it in front of his house at around 9.00 p.m. After that he had his dinner. He went out for a walk towards Baramati Hostel. At around 10 p.m. one Nilesh Shinde came to him and told him that the Appellant was quarreling with PW-1's wife. PW-1 then rushed towards his house. He saw that both the accused were quarreling with his wife and father. When PW-1 questioned them, they told PW-1 that because of his car they were put to inconvenience. The quarrel escalated. The 4 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: :5: 63-APEAL-505-23.odt Appellant had a cutter in his hand. He gave blows on the neck, chest, abdomen and below the armpit of PW-1, who suffered serious bleeding injuries. PW-1's wife, father and neighbours took him to Ratna Hospital by rickshaw. While he was in the hospital, the police recorded his statement, which is treated as FIR and it is produced on record at Exhibit-32. The FIR shows an endorsement of the doctor that the patient was conscious and could give his statement. During investigation, the police seized PW-1's clothes i.e. his baniyan and T-shirt. PW-1 identified those clothes and the cutter used by the Appellant produced in the Court. There were two pieces of the cutter. He identified both of them.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that there were about 80 houses in the chawl and there were around 300 people residing in that chawl. He admitted that there was one feet broad wall between the two houses. It was a common wall between the two houses. He also admitted that if a vehicle was parked on the road, there was obstruction on the road. He had gone for a walk and at around 9.45 p.m., he was informed by 5 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: :6: 63-APEAL-505-23.odt Nilesh regarding the quarrel. He returned home at around 10.00 p.m. After that the quarrel took place for about 15-20 minutes. After the incident, he was taken to Ratna hospital. At that time, he was conscious. His treatment was started at around 11.45 p.m. and he was kept in ICU. He did not remember as to whether he was given anesthesia. According to him, the FIR was taken down at around 3.00 a.m. to 3.15 a.m.. About 10 to 15 people had gathered at the spot at the time of the incident. He denied the suggestion that because of the past quarrel he had lodged a false FIR.
8. PW-1's wife Pramila Parte was examined as PW-2. She has stated that on 17.2.2009, PW-1 had gone out for a walk. At that time, both the accused started quarreling with PW-1 and her father-in-law. When the quarrel was still going on, the informant (PW-1) returned to their house. After that, the incident took place. PW-2 has described the incident in the same manner as is described by PW-1.
In the cross-examination, she deposed that her statement was recorded by the police on 20.2.2009. The police 6 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: :7: 63-APEAL-505-23.odt had recorded her husband's statement in the hospital. At that time, she was present there. Her brother-in-law Ajinkya had not participated in the quarrel. She could not tell the names of the persons who were present when PW-1 was taken to the hospital. She further admitted that in respect of the same incident, PW-1, PW-2 and her father-in-law were facing Criminal Case No.791/2019 before the same trial Court. She denied the suggestion that somebody gave a blow with a cutter on the Appellant's wife. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
9. PW-3 Dr. Bharat Kalambe is an important witness. He was a Consultant and used to visit Ratna Hospital. On 17.2.2009, he received a call from the Casualty Department of Ratna Hospital informing that a young patient was admitted with multiple stab injuries. PW-3 went to the hospital and examined PW-1, who was admitted in the hospital. He had found the following injuries :
i. Incised wound on left side of the neck measuring 8 x 4 x 2 cm; ii. Incised wound on the chest wall, left of the mid rib, of the size 4 x 4 x 2 cm;
7 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 :::
:8: 63-APEAL-505-23.odt
iii. Incised wound on the left side of the mid-rib of the size 3 x 2 x 1 cm;
iv. Incised wound on the left side of the chest wall, lower side of the left nipple measuring 6 x 4 x 2 cm.
v. CLW on the left lower side of abdominal wall measuring 14 x 4 x 2 cm.
vi. CLW to left kidney region measuring 5 x 3 x 2 cm.
The patient was heavily bleeding. He was taken to the operation theater. PW-3 has further deposed that all the injuries were grievous in nature and they were caused by sharp weapon. All the injuries were fresh and most of them occurred within 4 to 6 hours. He prepared the injury certificate. It was produced on record at Exhibit-35. According to him, the injuries were possible by the broken blades shown to him. He admitted that all the injuries were fatal in nature and could have resulted in death of the patient if they had not treated the patient in time.
In the cross-examination, he denied that considering the injuries described, the patient could be unconscious. He could not recollect the exact time of treatment. He deposed that while carrying out operation on the patient, he was given general anesthesia. He deposed that the time for which the patient could 8 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: :9: 63-APEAL-505-23.odt be unconscious depended on the doses of the anesthesia. He did not recollect what dose was administered to the patient in this case and he could not remember how long the patient was unconscious due to anesthesia. The injury certificate produced at Exhibit-35 mentions the same injuries as deposed by PW-3.
10. PW-4 Raju More was a pancha for the spot panchnama which is produced on record at Exhibit-37. He has deposed, and it is also described in the spot panchnama, that there was blood at the spot and a blade of the cutter was found at the spot. The police had seized it.
11. PW-5 Nilesh Shinde was the person who had informed PW-1 about the quarrel between the Appellant and PW-1's family members.
12. PW-6 Motiram Uttekar was a pancha in whose presence the Appellant gave his memorandum statement leading to recovery of other part of the cutter. It was concealed on the top of the house of the Appellant. The memorandum and the recovery panchnama is produced on record at Exhibit-40. Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of this pancha.
9 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 :::
: 10 : 63-APEAL-505-23.odt
13. PW-7 PSI Manisha Patil was the investigating officer. She was attached to Chaturshrungi police station. She conducted the investigation in the present case after registration of C.R. No.68/2009. She conducted the investigation. She collected the injury certificate, carried out the spot panchnama and seized the cutter which was recovered at the instance of the Appellant. She obtained blood samples for Chemical Analysis. The articles were sent by her to FSL. She filed the charge-sheet. The CA report, which is produced on record, shows that two pieces of the cutter i.e. one found at the spot and the other part recovered at the instance of the Appellant matched with each other. . This, in short, is the evidence led by the prosecution.
14. As mentioned earlier, the defence of the Appellant was of total denial and according to him he was falsely implicated because of the dispute regarding the parking space.
15. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant made the following submissions :
i. The learned Judge erred in convicting the Appellant. In paragraph-25 of the impugned judgment, the learned 10 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: : 11 : 63-APEAL-505-23.odt Judge had referred to the evidence in Sessions Case No.791/2019; and had observed that the accused in the present case had deposed in the said Sessions Case No.791/2019 that PW-1 Sachin Parte himself was having a cutter; and in the scuffle when the cutter was snatched by the neighbours he sustained the injuries. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel this approach of the learned Judge is erroneous and he could not have referred to the evidence in the cross-case to reach a conclusion in the present case.
ii. He further submitted that it was a case of sudden quarrel and, therefore, the offence may not be under Section 307 of IPC but at the highest it could be an offence under Section 308 of IPC.
iii. The clothes of the injured were produced but surprisingly the baniyan of the injured showed only one cut; whereas there were six injuries out of which at least five injuries were at the places where the baniyan of PW-1 should have shown the corresponding cuts. Therefore, this raises doubt 11 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: : 12 : 63-APEAL-505-23.odt about the entire incident and the investigation. iv. There was no premeditation and no deadly weapon was used.
v. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there were two CLWs and four incised wounds. There are no allegations that any hard and blunt weapon was used. Thus the CLWs have remained unexplained.
16. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposed these submissions. They relied on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. They submitted that looking at the nature of injuries, there is no scope to even argue that a lesser offence is committed.
17. I have considered these submissions. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is absolutely consistent. Both these witnesses have described the incident in detail and have ascribed the specific role to the Appellant. PW-1 had gone for a walk and from there he had reached to the spot where the incident of quarrel 12 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: : 13 : 63-APEAL-505-23.odt was going on. He tried to reason with the Appellant but the Appellant gave blows with the cutter. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument that the cutter was brought by PW-1 himself. It was not necessary for the learned Judge to have taken recourse to referring to the evidence in the cross-case. Inspite of that the evidence in the present case is sufficiently strong enough and incriminating against the Appellant. The medical officer has described the injuries in detail.
18. Though it was argued that the Appellant, with the same weapon, could not have caused four incised wounds and two CLWs, it is significant to note that the two injuries which are described as CLWs also showed the size of the injuries as "6x4x2 cm" and "14 x 4 x 2 cm". Thus, there was third dimension of the depth which means that it was caused by a sharp weapon. It was in the nature of cut or stab wound.
19. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the offence could be a lesser offence under Section 308 of IPC and not under Section 307 of IPC because the incident had suddenly occurred in a quarrel. In this 13 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 ::: : 14 : 63-APEAL-505-23.odt case, the Appellant was having a cutter, which he used to inflict blows on the injured (PW-1). There were six blows given one after the other. All of them were on the vital parts of the injured (PW-1). The medical officer has described seriousness of the injuries and has also deposed that they were grievous injuries. He has added that PW-1 would not have survived had he not been treated in time. All this shows that the requisite intention under Section 307 of IPC is made out in the present case as far as the Appellant is concerned.
20. Another incriminating piece of circumstance is that one part of the cutter was found at the spot and the other part was recovered at the instance of the Appellant from the roof of his house. Both these parts were seized from different places. One of them was recovered at the instance of the Appellant. The C.A. report shows that those pieces were of the same weapon. This is an additional circumstance against the present Appellant.
21. Taking into account all these factors, it can be concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.
14 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 :::
: 15 : 63-APEAL-505-23.odt
22. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that considering that the incident is old and it was a result of a quarrel which has started because of PW-1 parking his car in front of the Appellant's house, some leniency be shown to the Appellant and the sentence be reduced. In this regard, if the nature of injuries and the number of injuries are considered, then it is not possible to reduce the sentence which is of five years. Already some leniency is shown by the learned trial Judge. In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane(PS) PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2024.08.16 11:47:51 +0530 15 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 13:37:53 :::