Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Our findings on the issues of arrest of the accused persons and discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act at their instance :

35. The entire evidence on the arrest and discovery from the accused persons, as narrated above, is not seriously challenged in the cross-examination. The accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were arrested on 11-1-2013. Weapons from accused Nos.1 and 2 were seized vide Exhibits 138 and 139 on 12-1-2013 and on 13-1-2013 vide Exhibit 147 respectively. Seizure from accused Nos.5 and 6 was on apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt 14-1-2013 vide Exhibit 182 and on 19-1-2013 vide Exhibit 149 respectively. The clothes seized were forwarded on 19-1-2013 vide Exhibit 189 to the Regional Forensic Laboratory at Nagpur. The weapons seized and sealed were taken out from Malkhana and sent to the Chemical Analyzer for analysis under covering letter dated 4-2-2013 at Exhibit 207. There is no question of any explanation in respect of clothes and articles seized, or the delay, if any, as alleged. The defence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that it is false. There is a corroborative evidence available on record and discussed above. We have, therefore, no hesitation to accept the entire evidence and we do not find any valid reason to discard it. We concur with such a view taken by the Sessions Court. What is the effect of it and in what manner it forms a chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused, can be seen at a later stage.

Query Report in respect of weapons seized :

36. PW 10 Dr. Nitin Shyamrao Barmate conducted post mortem over the body of deceased Jitu and has described 11 stab injuries, apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt 12 incised wound, constituting external injuries and internal injuries in thorax, abdomen, cavity, stomach and kidney. He has proved the post mortem report at Exhibit 141. In response to the requisition letter dated 2-2-2013 at Exhibit 142 for weapon query in respect of two knives - Articles 1 and 2 - sent to him, he gave his opinion on 2-2-2013 at Exhibit 143. Paras 4, 5 and 6 of his opinion being relevant, are reproduced below :

Our findings on the weapons seized and the report of the Chemical Analyzer :

38. The oral evidence of PW 10 Dr. Nitin, the post mortem report at Exhibit 141, the query report at Exhibit 143 about two knives, viz. Articles 1 and 2, and the reports of the Chemical Analyzer at Exhibits 66, 68, 69 and 72, constitute an incriminating evidence proved against the accused Nos.1 and 2. In response to the question Nos.114 in respect of report at Exhibit 143, put in the apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that "I do not know"; whereas in response to the question Nos.186 to 196 regarding the Chemical Analyzer's reports at Exhibits 66, 68, 69 and 72 is that "It is false". The discovery of the weapons of knife under Section 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance of accused No.1- Tushar and accused No.2- Kunal at Exhibits 139 and 147 is established and its user in crime is established as per query report at Exhibit 143 and the reports of Chemical Analyzers at Exhibits 66, 68, 69 and 72. We concur with such a view taken by the Sessions Court.
39. It may have happened that some of the panch witnesses on the weapons or clothes or other articles seized have not supported the story of prosecution or have become hostile. In our view, once the discovery is proved by examining the Investigating Officer, who seized the weapons, clothes or other articles from the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and nothing is brought adverse to the prosecution in his cross-examination, there cannot be any hesitation to accept his evidence to hold that the discovery or seizure is established. This is in concurrence with the view taken by the Sessions Court.