Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

From the evidence, it appears that the respondent was considered to be a goonda and a hot headed person by the residents of the locality.

On 19-1-1981, at about 10.30 p.m. Govindraj was sleeping inside his hut. At that time, Parvati and Kanamma were sitting on a cot and were talking. The respondent came in front of their hut and started abusing Parvati and Kanamma. Naturally, Parvati asked the respondent as to why he was abusing them. Thereupon, the respondent became angry and entered inside the hut. He gave two fist blows on the nose of Parvati resulting in bleeding from her nose. He also gave a fist blow on the backside of the elbow of Kanamma. Parvati shouted resulting in Govindraj waking up. Govindraj asked the respondent as to why he had assaulted Parvati and Kanamma. Thereupon, the respondent caught hold of Govindraj's shirt and dragged him outside the hut. He took him on the main road which was in front of the hut. At that place, there was electric light. The respondent knocked down Govindraj on the road near the place where there was electric light; took out a knife from his shoe; and inflicted a solitary blow on the right side of the chest of Govindraj with the same. After inflicting the blow, the respondent stood there. Parvati and Kanamma were watching the incident from their hut. They wanted to come to the rescue of Govindraj but the respondent brandished the knife towards them and hence understandably they could not muster the required moral courage to come to the rescue of Govindraj.

14. Ms. Pawar strenuously urged that there are some clinching circumstances which are a guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution case and weightage was not given to them by the learned trial Judge.

She firstly contended that the prosecution case is backed up by the evidence of two injured eye witnesses namely Parvati and her mother Kanamma. She urged that the manner of incident deposed to by these witnesses is proved not only by their injuries but also by circumstances. In this connection, Ms. Pawar urged that evidence of both these eye witnesses is to the effect that on 19-1-1981 at about 10/10.30 p.m. the respondent came to their hut. He abused Parvati who thereupon asked him as to why he was abusing her. On that, he gave fist blows to them. Their evidence further is that blood came out from the nose of Parvati. While being assaulted, Parvati and Kanamma raised cries of "Bachav Bachav" hearing which Govindraj who was sleeping inside the hut, woke up and asked the respondent as to why he had abused and assaulted them. The respondent thereupon caught collar of the shirt of Govindraj and dragging him, took him outside the hut to the main road which was in front of their hut. A street lamp was burning there. There respondent knocked down Govindraj and inflicted a knife blow on his person. Thereafter, he dragged Govindraj and left him on the grass nearby.

18. Mr. Shirodkar also urged that both the eye-witnesses have stated that after the respondent had assaulted Govindraj with a knife and the latter had fallen down, he dragged him. In this connection, he invited our attention to the post mortem report and the statement of the autopsy surgeon Dr. Subhash Gupta P.W. 11. Their perusal shows that no scratches or dragging marks were found on the person of the deceased. In the contention of Mr. Shirodkar, this creates a grave doubt, both on the presence as well as on the claim of these witnesses of having seen the incident. We also find some merit in this contention.