Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Having rejected the evidence of Suresh Sobaji, we are left with that of Rajabhau Kamble, Dattatraya Kamble, Bhaskar Bhinge and Mahesh Bhinge. .

The evidence of these four witnesses is to be evaluated in the background of the conclusions enumerated herein after:-

(a) They are enimical to the appellants:

(b) they have falsely implicated Laxman Shirsat @ Paparkar: and {c) they have falsely stated that Suresh Sobaji (P.W. 13) witnessed the incident.

To appreciate conclusion (a) it would be necessary to refer to the inter se relationship between these witnesses and the deceased persons. Rajabhau Kamble and Dattatraya Kamble are real brothers and the deceased Laxman was also their real brother. Bhaskar Bhinge and Mahesh Bhinge are father and son infer se and Kailas Bhinge was the real brother of Bhaskar Bhinge.

Paragraph 9 of examination-in-chief of Rajabhau Kamble establishes that these witnesses were eniminal to the appellants, who, as admitted by him in paragraph 11 were relations inter se.

In paragraph 9 Rajabhau Kamble admitted that in 1995 his sister's husband Prakash Sangitrao had contested Municipal elections against the appellant Tulsiram Kambale and in the said election he, Kailas Bhinge and others had canvassed on behalf of Prakash Sangitrao and therefore, Tulsiram Kambale was annoyed with them. There are other admissions which show that the said witnesses and the two deceased persons belonged to one party and were enimical to the appellants but in our view it would not be necessary to advert to them.

We feel that in view of the said infirmities, bearing in mind:- (a) that he is a enimical witnesses: (b) has falsely deposed to about presence of Suresh Sobaji: and (c) has falsely implicated co-accused Laxman Shirsat @ Paparkar to whom in his examination-in-chief in para 3, he has assigned, the specific role of assaulting the deceased Kailas with a sword, it would not be safe to place reliance on his evidence.

16. We also feel that it would not safe to place reliance on the evidence of Bhaskar Bhinge and Mahesh Bhinge.

We are fortified in our view by the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vjay Shanker Misra & others v. The State reported in 1984 Allahabad Law Journal page 1316 wherein in paragraph 22 it has been held that if an injured witness is not a reliable witness and there is material infirmity or falsity in some part of his evidence it would not be safe to convict the accused solely on his evidence.

17. In the first place both these witnesses Bhaskar Bhinge and Mahesh Bhinge are not only enimical witnesses but also categorically deposed to about the participation of co-accused Laxman Shirsat @ Paparkar to whom they assigned the role of assaulting the deceased Kailas with sword, who as seen above could not have participated in the incident. Apart from it we find that they deposed about the presence of a false witness Suresh Sobaji and are enimical witnesses.