Bombay High Court
Rajkumar @ Bandu S/O Sahadeo Selokar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 17 January, 2026
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:682-DB
1 apeal 317.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2021
Rajkumar @ Bandu s/o Sahadeo Selokar,
Aged about 46 years, Occupation - Farmer,
R/o Mandhal, Tahsil - Tumsar, District -
Bhandara. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Officer-in-charge of Police
Station Mohadi, District Bhandara. .... RESPONDENT
____________________________________________________________________
Mr. R.D. Hajare, Counsel (appointed) for the appellant,
Ms. R.V. Sharma, Addl.P.P. for the respondent/State.
____________________________________________________________________
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 6th JANUARY, 2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 17th JANUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT :(PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2017, whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). The appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, and 2 apeal 317.21.odt rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 450 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(3) of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifices and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 (for short, "the Black Magic Act, 2013").
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant Rajkumar @ Bandu Selokar and the injured informant Shivshankar Selokar are real brothers, residing in adjoining portions of a common residential house at village Mandhal, District Bhandara. Shivshankar resided with his wife Laxmibai, who succumbed to injuries sustained in the incident. In the night of 16.11.2016, Shivshankar and Laxmibai were sleeping on separate cots in the chhapari of their house along with their minor grand-daughters. At about 3.00 a.m., Shivshankar woke up to use washroom and noticed the appellant standing in the courtyard. Shortly thereafter, harbouring a suspicion that Shivshankar had practised black magic upon his she-buffalo, the appellant entered the chhapari armed with an axe and repeatedly assaulted Shivshankar on his head, neck and shoulder and inflicted severe blows on Laxmibai on her head and face. Both Shivshankar and Laxmibai fell unconscious in a pool of blood.
3. On hearing the screams, a neighbour, who was also a relative of the appellant and the injured, rushed to the spot. He witnessed the incident and attempted to intervene. Thereafter, the injured were immediately taken to the 3 apeal 317.21.odt Sub-District Hospital, Tumsar, and subsequently referred to the General Hospital, Bhandara for further treatment. During the course of treatment, Laxmibai succumbed to the injuries, particularly head injuries, while Shivshankar survived with grievous injuries.
4. On the basis of the statement of injured Shivshankar Selokar recorded at the General Hospital, Bhandara, a First Information Report (Exh.65) came to be registered as Crime No. 64 of 2016 at Police Station Mohadi for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 450 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (3) of the Black Magic Act, 2013. Upon the death of Laxmibai, as reflected in the medical memo dated 17.11.2016, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was added. Spot panchanama (Exh.35) was drawn at the place of occurrence, i.e. the chhapari of Shivshankar's house, and blood-stained articles including bed-sheets, pillows and broken bangles were seized. Statements of witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "CrPC") were recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohadi.
5. The appellant was arrested on 17.11.2016. During investigation, a memorandum statement of the appellant came to be recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the presence of panch witnesses, pursuant to which, the blood-stained axe allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered from his house. The Police Head Constable seized clothes of the deceased, along with viscera and blood samples. He also obtained blood samples of the injured. On 22-11-2016 he forwarded the 4 apeal 317.21.odt seized muddemal to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur for chemical analysis.
6. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohadi, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bhandara on 03.04.2017, the offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Court framed Charge (Exh.6) against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 450 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(3) of the Black Magic Act, 2013. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, including the injured informant Shivshankar Selokar (PW-1), the panch witnesses Maheshkumar Mankar (PW-2), Shubham Bhurle (PW-3) & Vinod Nikhade (PW4), the child eyewitness Sanjana Selokar (PW-5), the neighbour-relative Dinesh Selokar (PW-6), Police Patil Vijay Ahir (PW-7), the driver, who had took injured to the hospital, Rajbahadur Chavan (PW-8), Medical Officers Ashish Chindhalore (PW-9), Pradip Anand (PW-10) and Jyoti Kukade (PW-14), PSI Omprakash Gedam (PW-11), Police Constable Hivraj Warkade (PW-12) and the Investigating Officer Pradipsingh Pardeshi (PW-13). After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances and claimed false implication on account of an alleged agricultural dispute with the injured.
5 apeal 317.21.odt
8. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had proved that the death of Laxmibai was homicidal. It was further held that the appellant inflicted axe blows on the deceased with the intention and knowledge that such acts were likely to cause her death. The learned trial Court also found that the appellant caused grievous injuries to Shivshankar with an axe, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Relying upon the consistent testimonies of the injured eyewitness (PW-1), the child witness (PW-5), the natural witness (PW-6), corroborative medical evidence, recovery of the blood-stained axe, and the prompt lodging of the FIR, the learned trial Court rejected the defence of false implication. Consequently, while acquitting the appellant of the charge under the Black Magic Act, 2013, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him under Sections 302, 307 and 450 of the IPC, as stated hereinabove.
9. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:
9.1 The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 16.07.2019, contending that the same is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. It was submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective and proceeded to convict the appellant despite serious contradictions, infirmities and absence of legally reliable proof.
6 apeal 317.21.odt 9.2 It was argued that the entire prosecution case rests upon the testimony of interested witnesses, and there is no independent, cogent or trustworthy ocular evidence to support the conviction.
9.3 The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the commission of the alleged offence. It was contended that in a case involving serious charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, proof of motive assumes significance, particularly where the evidence is weak or circumstantial.
9.4 It was argued that PW-1, the injured eyewitness, is not a reliable witness. During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that due to the winter season he had covered his face with a blanket while sleeping and that immediately after the assault, he became unconscious. It was argued that these admissions render the identification of the assailant doubtful and that such a witness cannot be treated as a dependable eyewitness. 9.5 The learned Counsel submitted that PW-5 admitted in her cross-
examination that the chhapari was covered with curtains from all sides, thereby restricting visibility. In view of this, the testimony of PW-6, who claimed to have rushed to the spot and attempted to snatch the axe from the appellant, was contended to be wholly improbable. It was further pointed out that PW-6 himself admitted that he was sleeping inside his house with doors closed and lights switched off, thereby making his presence doubtful.
7 apeal 317.21.odt 9.6 It was submitted that PW-7, the Police Patil, is a hearsay witness, as his knowledge of the incident is based on information received after the occurrence. His testimony, according to the appellant, does not establish the manner of occurrence or the involvement of the appellant, and reliance placed upon such evidence by the learned trial Court is erroneous. 9.7 The learned Counsel also relied upon the Chemical Analysis Report (Exh.95) to contend that no blood stains were detected on the clothes allegedly worn by the appellant at the time of the incident. It was argued that this scientific evidence seriously dents the prosecution case and creates a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's involvement. 9.8 It was further contended that the incident occurred during late night hours in darkness and no independent witness has been examined to establish the identity of the assailant. In such circumstances, the possibility of mistaken identity cannot be ruled out, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
9.9 On the aforesaid grounds, it was submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court.
8 apeal 317.21.odt
10. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-State :
10.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 16.07.2019 and submitted that the same is legal, proper and based on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record. It was contended that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that no case for interference in appeal is made out. 10.2 It was submitted that the prosecution case rests on direct ocular evidence, and not merely on circumstantial evidence. The injured eyewitness PW-1 Shivshankar Sahadeo Selokar has given a clear, consistent and trustworthy account of the assault committed by the appellant. His presence at the scene is undisputed, and his testimony is entitled to great weight in law. The evidence of PW-1 is natural and free from embellishment and has remained unshaken in cross-examination.
10.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW-1 is amply corroborated by PW 5 - Ku. Sanjana Ganesh Selokar, a child eyewitness, whose presence at the spot is natural and unquestionable. It was argued that the learned trial Court, after satisfying itself regarding her competency, rightly relied upon her testimony. Her evidence is consistent on material particulars, particularly with regard to the identity of the appellant, the weapon used and the manner of assault.
9 apeal 317.21.odt 10.4 It was further submitted that the testimony of PW-6 Dinesh Jairam Selokar provides additional corroboration to the prosecution case. PW-6 is a natural witness, who rushed to the spot immediately after hearing shouts and witnessed the appellant assaulting the victims.
10.5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW-7, the Police Patil, though not an eyewitness to the assault, is relevant and admissible to prove the immediate aftermath of the incident, the condition of the injured persons, and the prior animosity arising out of the appellant's suspicion of black magic. His evidence lends assurance to the prosecution version and establishes motive. It was argued that the medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular testimony. PW-9 Dr. Ashish Chindhalore and PW-10 Dr. Pradip Anand have proved that the injuries sustained by Shivshankar were grievous and caused by a sharp and heavy weapon, and that the injuries sustained by Laxmibai were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem report conclusively establishes that Laxmibai's death was homicidal. 10.6 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the axe (Art-F) recovered at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was found to be capable of causing the injuries sustained by the victims. The recovery is duly proved through reliable panch and Investigating Officer evidence and constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance against the appellant. With regard to the defence contention based on the Chemical Analysis Report, it was submitted that the absence of 10 apeal 317.21.odt blood stains on the clothes allegedly worn by the appellant does not discredit the prosecution case. It is settled law that when reliable ocular evidence is available, failure to detect blood on the clothes of the appellant is not fatal, particularly when the blood-stained weapon has been recovered and proved. 10.7 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the defence arguments regarding darkness, curtains in the chhapari, and alleged improbability of witnesses are artificial and speculative. The appellant is the real brother of PW-1 and was well known to all eyewitnesses. Identification in such circumstances is not dependent upon lighting conditions, and the possibility of mistaken identity is completely ruled out. 10.8 It was further submitted that motive, though not a sine qua non when there is direct evidence, is sufficiently established in the present case by the appellant's suspicion that the injured had practised black magic affecting his buffaloes. The evidence on record demonstrates prior animosity and provides a plausible motive for the crime. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor emphasized that the FIR was promptly lodged by the injured himself while under treatment, leaving no scope for concoction. The investigation was fair, complete and in accordance with law. Minor procedural lapses, if any, do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. It was finally submitted that the nature of the assault, repeated blows with an axe on vital parts of the body, clearly establishes the intention and knowledge required to attract Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, and the unlawful entry into the dwelling house during night hours attracts Section 450 of the IPC.
11 apeal 317.21.odt 10.9 In view of the consistent ocular evidence, corroborative medical and forensic evidence, and recovery of the weapon, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is fully justified and does not call for interference and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. We have heard R.D. Hajare, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mrs. R.V. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. We have gone through the impugned judgment, evidence, documents, etc. We will refer to the same to the extent necessary to decide following points that arise for our consideration. We have recorded our findings thereon for the reasons to follow.
S.N. Points Finding
(i) Whether it is proved by the prosecution In the affirmative.
that the accused committed homicidal
death of Laxmibai?
(ii) Whether it is proved by the prosecution In the affirmative.
that the accused voluntarily caused
grievous injuries to Shivshankar with an
axe on the day of the alleged incident,
sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death?
(iii) Whether interference is called for in the In the negative
impugned judgment?
(iv) What order? As per final order.
12 apeal 317.21.odt
REASONS :
12. Before adverting to the points for determination, we find it appropriate to briefly refer to the evidence produced by the prosecution for proving its case.
12.1 PW-1 Shivshankar Sahadeo Selokar (Injured Eye-witness): PW-1 is the injured complainant and husband of the deceased. He has categorically deposed that on 17-11-2016, at about 3.00 a.m., the appellant Rajkumar, his real brother, assaulted him with an axe while he was sleeping in the chhapari of his house and thereafter inflicted repeated axe blows on his wife Laxmi.
He sustained injuries on head, neck and shoulder and became unconscious. He further deposed that about 15 days prior to the incident, the appellant had quarrelled with and assaulted him on suspicion that PW-1 was practicing black magic causing his she-buffaloes to yield less milk. His testimony is supported by prompt medical treatment, seizure of his blood-stained clothes, recording of his statement after regaining consciousness, and correct identification of the weapon and seized articles. He remained firm in cross- examination and denied all suggestions of false implication or alternative cause.
12.2. PW-2 Maheshkumar Mankar (Independent Panch Witness): PW-2, a Junior Clerk deputed by Tahasildar, proved the spot-cum-seizure panchanama (Exh.35), arrest of the appellant (Exh.36), memorandum statement (Exh.37) and recovery of blood-stained axe at the instance of the appellant (Exh.38). His testimony remains unshaken in cross-examination and establishes 13 apeal 317.21.odt compliance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. His status as a government servant lends assurance to his credibility. 12.3. PW-3 Shubham Bhurle (Seizure Panch): PW-3 proved seizure of blood- stained clothes of injured PW-1 vide Exh.15. He identified the seized articles and affirmed that the panchanama was prepared in his presence, denying any suggestion of false or mechanical signing. He corroborated the fact that PW-1 was seriously injured and admitted in hospital immediately after the incident. 12.4. PW-4 Vinod Nikhade (Panch Witness): PW-4 proved seizure of blood- stained clothes of the deceased and the blood sample vide Exh.43. He identified the seized saree, blouse and sweater and affirmed that the seizure was effected in his presence, and in cross-examination, he denied all suggestions of false implication and refuted that his signature was obtained mechanically or without knowledge.
12.5. PW-5 Sanjana Selokar (Child Witness): PW-5, granddaughter of the deceased, though a child witness, has clearly deposed that the appellant assaulted both grandparents with an axe during the night of the incident. Her presence at the spot is natural. She identified the appellant in Court and, despite cross-examination, consistently maintained that she personally witnessed the assault and denied any tutoring or false implication. 12.6. PW-6 Dinesh Jairam Selokar (Neighbour and Relative): PW-6 corroborates the occurrence. He deposed that on hearing shouts from the house of PW-1 in the early hours of the morning, he rushed to the spot and 14 apeal 317.21.odt saw the appellant assaulting PW 1 Shivshankar and deceased Laxmibai with an axe. He attempted to intervene but was pushed by the appellant, who thereafter fled from the spot. He found both victims lying unconscious with bleeding injuries. His testimony further establishes the immediate aftermath and transportation of the injured to hospital. He also proved his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. His evidence is reliable and consistent. 12.7. PW-7 Vijay Ahir (Police Patil): PW-7 received immediate information about the assault and on arrival he saw both injured lying unconscious in a pool of blood. He corroborates the prompt reporting of the incident and prior motive relating to suspicion of black magic. His testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination.
12.8. PW-8 Rajbahadur Chavan (Driver): PW-8 corroborates transportation of injured Shivshankar and deceased Laxmi to hospital, lending assurance to the prosecution version regarding the sequence of events. 12.9. PW-9 Dr. Ashish Chindhalore (Medical Officer, Tumsar): PW-9 examined both the injured persons soon after the incident and proved Medico Legal Certificates (Exhs.52 & 53). He opined that injuries on both victims were grievous, caused by a sharp and hard object, and sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. He further opined that the injuries could be caused by the seized axe.
15 apeal 317.21.odt 12.10. PW-10 Dr. Pradip Anand conducted post-mortem on the deceased and proved Medico Legal Certificate (Exh.58) and injuries mentioned at Column No. 17 of the post-mortem report. On external examination, he found following injuries at the time of post mortem :
(i) Incised wound on left cheek of size 3 x ½ inch deep upto oral cavity;
(ii) Incised wound on left parietal region of size 3 x ½ inch with fracture skull bone;
(iii) Incised wound near left wrist joint of size 1 x ½ x ½ inch; and During internal examination, he found :
(i) Blood clots present below scalp of parietal region,
(ii) Hematoma present over left parietal region intra-durra.
(iii) Parenchyma congested on oedematous.
After post-mortem, he opined that death of Laxmibai occurred due to head injury and that the injuries were possible by the use of the axe recovered in the crime.
12.11. PW-11 PSI Omprakash Gedam: PW-11 proved recording of FIR (Exh.65), statement of injured PW-1 (Exh.14), seizure of clothes, inquest proceedings and procedural compliance at the initial stage of investigation. 12.12. PW-12 Police Constable Hivraj Warkade: PW-12 proved forwarding of sealed muddemal to Regional Forensic Scientific Laboratory (RFSL), Nagpur, thereby maintaining the chain of custody.
12.13. PW-13 PI Pradipsingh Pardeshi (Investigating Officer): PW-13 proved the entire investigation, including spot panchanama, arrest of appellant, recovery of weapon at the instance of the appellant, seizure of clothes, 16 apeal 317.21.odt forwarding of samples to RFSL, and filing of charge-sheet. His evidence does not suffer from material contradictions or lapses affecting the prosecution case.
12.14. PW-14 Dr. Jyoti Kukade: PW-14 proved collection and sealing of blood sample of injured PW-1 and issuance of Form-B (Exh.90), ensuring forensic linkage.
As to Point No. (i) to (iii) :
13. The testimony of PW-1, the injured eyewitness and husband of the deceased, occupies a position of pre-eminence. It is well settled that the evidence of an injured witness carries greater evidentiary value, as the presence of such a witness at the scene of offence is beyond doubt and his testimony ordinarily inspires confidence unless strong reasons exist for rejection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 has observed the same as below -
"28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the 17 apeal 317.21.odt occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below."
PW-1 has given a clear, cogent and consistent account of the incident, identifying the appellant as the assailant, describing the weapon (axe), the manner of assault, and the injuries sustained by him and his wife. His version that he lost consciousness after the assault and regained it in the General Hospital is corroborated by the medical evidence and police testimony.
14. The defence suggestion of false implication on account of land dispute or prior enmity was categorically denied by PW-1 and remains unsubstantiated. Mere existence of a prior dispute, even if assumed, cannot be a ground to discard otherwise trustworthy ocular testimony, particularly when it furnishes motive for the offence. Rather it will substantiate that motive behind crime, where probability of implication is ruled out in the present case it has been. The testimony of PW-1 has remained unshaken in cross-examination and finds ample corroboration from independent and circumstantial evidence.
15. PW-5, a child witness aged about 9 years, is a natural and most proximate eyewitness, having been present at the spot while sleeping with the deceased and injured. The record indicates that the learned trial Court, before recording her evidence, was satisfied as to her competency and ability to understand and answer questions. Her testimony is consistent and free 18 apeal 317.21.odt from material contradiction. She unequivocally identified the appellant by name and relationship, and clearly stated that he assaulted both grandparents with an axe. The law is well settled that the evidence of a child witness is not to be discarded merely on the ground of age, and if found credible and free from tutoring, it can form the basis of conviction. The Division Bench of this Court in case of The State of Maharashtra vs Guddu Chhotelal Rajak, Criminal Confirmation Case No. 02/2024 has held as under-
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pramila v. State of U.P., reported in (2021) 12 SCC 550, has observed thus: -
"5. Criminal jurisprudence does not hold that the evidence of a child witness is unreliable and can be discarded. A child who is aged about 11 to 12 years certainly has reasonably developed mental faculty to see, absorb and appreciate. In a given case the evidence of a child witness alone can also form the basis for conviction. The mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness. But the courts have regularly held that where a child witness is to be considered, and more so when he is the sole witness, a heightened level of scrutiny is called for of the evidence so that the court is satisfied with regard to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence of the child witness. PW 2 was examined nearly one year after the occurrence. The Court has, therefore, to satisfy itself that all possibilities of tutoring or otherwise are ruled out and what was deposed was nothing but the truth.
6. The evidence of a child witness and the manner of its consideration has been dealt with in State of M.P. v. Ramesh [State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 493], as follows : (SCC p. 792, para 14) "14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition."
19 apeal 317.21.odt The cross-examination fails to bring out any material contradiction, exaggeration or tutoring. Minor omissions regarding surrounding circumstances are natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case.
16. PW-6, whose presence at the spot is explained by the immediate aftermath of the incident has categorically deposed that he saw the appellant assaulting PW 1 Shivshankar and deceased Laxmibai with an axe and that the appellant fled after pushing him. His testimony lends strong corroboration to PW-1 and PW-5 on all material particulars, identity of the assailant, weapon used, and place of occurrence. Minor variations regarding the layout of the house or seasonal conditions do not affect the core of his testimony.
17. PW-7, the Police Patil of village Mandhal, is an independent and responsible village officer, whose testimony establishes the immediacy of the incident. He, though not an eyewitness, reached the spot immediately and found victims lying unconscious in a pool of blood. His testimony also brings on record the prior suspicion regarding black magic, thereby lending support to the prosecution version regarding motive. His evidence remained intact in cross-examination.
18. PW-8's testimony regarding transportation of injured, though limited, supports the prosecution version as to the immediate steps taken post- incident. The fact that his statement was not recorded earlier does not discredit the prosecution, as non-examination or omission of a formal 20 apeal 317.21.odt statement of a witness is not fatal when substantive evidence is otherwise reliable.
19. The medical evidence adduced through PW-9 and PW-10 is in complete consonance with the ocular version. The injuries sustained by PW 1 were grievous and caused by a sharp and heavy weapon, and the injuries found on deceased Laxmibai, particularly the incised wound with skull fracture, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries were ante-mortem. The post-mortem opinion clearly establishes that the death of Laxmibai was homicidal and caused by head injury. Both doctors have unequivocally opined that the injuries could be caused by the seized axe (Art- F). No material contradiction was elicited in their cross-examination so as to discredit their opinions.
20. The recovery of the blood-stained axe at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stands duly proved through the evidence of PW-2 and PW-13. The recovery was made pursuant to a voluntary disclosure statement and from a place within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant. The seizure of blood-stained clothes of the appellant, deceased and injured, along with spot panchanama, further strengthens the chain of circumstances.
21. The minor discrepancies pointed out regarding sealing or forwarding of muddemal articles, particularly through PW-12, are procedural in nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is settled law that such 21 apeal 317.21.odt lapses do not vitiate the prosecution case when substantive evidence is reliable and cogent. The FIR was lodged promptly by the injured himself while under treatment, ruling out concoction. PW-11 and PW-13 have proved compliance with all procedural safeguards, medical fitness, inquest, post- mortem, seizure, forwarding to RFSL, and addition of Section 302 of the IPC upon death of Laxmibai. The defence allegation of false investigation or fabrication remains a bald suggestion, unsupported by any material or circumstance.
22. It is well settled that for attracting the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the nature or gravity of the injury actually caused is not determinative. The crucial consideration is the intention or knowledge with which the act is committed, which has to be gathered from the manner of assault, the nature of weapon used, and the part of the body targeted. The mere fact that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature would not, by itself, absolve the appellant-accused from liability under Section 307 of the IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Khaja v. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1183/2011 held in para 8 as under :
"8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused. In the instant case, it was proved by cogent evidence that the appellant/accused had tried to assault the complainant Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) with Gupti and that too on his 22 apeal 317.21.odt head. Though the complainant received injury on his right shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the appellant/accused would be covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. There being no infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed."
On the contrary, judicial precedents consistently hold that even a minor injury inflicted on a vital part of the body by a deadly weapon is sufficient to infer the requisite intention or knowledge. If such a principle applies where a single blow results in a simple injury, it follows with greater force in cases where the assailant delivers repeated blows with a dangerous weapon on vital parts such as the head, chest or abdomen. Repetition of the attack, coupled with the choice of weapon and targeting of vital regions, clearly demonstrates a determined and deliberate attempt to cause death, thereby squarely attracting the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, irrespective of the eventual medical outcome.
23. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant have been carefully considered in the light of the evidence on record. At the outset, it must be noted that the prosecution case rests not on circumstantial evidence alone, but primarily on the testimony of an injured eyewitness, corroborated by a child eyewitness, an independent natural witness, medical evidence and recovery of the weapon. The contention that PW-1 is an unreliable witness cannot be accepted. Merely because PW-1 stated that he was sleeping with a blanket or that he lost consciousness after sustaining injuries does not negate his ability to identify the assailant, particularly when the assault was sudden, 23 apeal 317.21.odt at close quarters and committed by his own real brother, who was well known to him.
24. The argument that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses is equally untenable. Relationship with the victim does not, by itself, render a witness unreliable. On the contrary, such witnesses are often the most natural witnesses to crimes committed within the family premises. In the present case, no material contradiction or exaggeration has been brought on record to discredit their testimony. The submission regarding improbability of PW-6's presence is devoid of merit. PW-6 has explained that he rushed to the spot on hearing shouts. His evidence is corroborative in nature and supports the prosecution version regarding the assault, the weapon and the conduct of the appellant. Minor discrepancies regarding sleeping arrangements or lighting conditions are natural and do not render his testimony unreliable. In view of the foregoing discussion, the testimony is held to be reliable.
25. As regards the Chemical Analysis Report, the absence of blood stains on the clothes allegedly worn by the appellant does not by itself demolish the prosecution case. It is a settled law that failure to detect blood stains on the clothes of the appellant is not fatal when there is a reliable ocular evidence and recovery of a blood-stained weapon at the instance of the appellant. The submission regarding darkness and possibility of mistaken identity is also without substance. The appellant is the real brother of PW-1 and was known to all eyewitnesses. Identification in such circumstances does not depend 24 apeal 317.21.odt upon lighting conditions alone, and the possibility of mistaken identity stands completely ruled out.
26. The manner of assault, targeting vital parts such as the head, and repeated blows with an axe clearly demonstrate the intention and knowledge necessary to attract Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. The unauthorized entry into the dwelling house during night hours establishes the offence under Section 450 of the IPC.
27. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly analyzed the prosecution evidence and rightly rejected the defence contentions. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant do not create any reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. The prosecution has established through credible ocular testimony of injured and child witnesses, corroborated by independent witnesses, recovery of weapon under Section 27, and strong medical evidence, that the appellant assaulted PW-1 and caused homicidal death of Laxmi by an axe. The evidence forms a complete and consistent chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant.
28. On a cumulative appreciation of the evidence on record, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant unlawfully entered the dwelling house of the victims during night hours, assaulted Shivshankar with an axe causing grievous injuries and inflicted fatal blows on Laxmibai, resulting in her death. The nature of injuries, the 25 apeal 317.21.odt weapon used and the parts of the body targeted clearly demonstrate the intention and knowledge required for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, while the manner of entry attracts Section 450 of the IPC. Accordingly, the Point Nos. (i) & (ii) are answered in the affirmative and (iii) is answered in the negative. As to Point No.(iv) :
29. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and do not suffer from perversity or legal infirmity. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 307 and 450 of the IPC. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2017 is confirmed.
30. Fees of the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant be quantified and paid as per rules.
(Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2026 14:29:13