Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Tukaram PW-4 on 2-11-1981 at 2.30 a.m. The FIR is Exhibit 16. It was recorded by PSI Gajanan Patil. In the said FIR, appellants are named.

4. It also appears that during the course of the incident, Laxmi PW-6 and Hari, the mother and father of the informant respectively also sustained injuries.

The injuries of Tukaram, Hari and Laxmi were medically examined by Dr. Vishwanath Yeshwant Bapat, PW-2.

The exact time of the medical examination of the injuries of Tukaram has not been mentioned by Dr. Bapat either in the injury report or in his statements the trial Court. In his statement, Dr. Bapat said that he had examined Tukaram on 2-11-1981 in the early hours of the day. The injuries of Tukaram are noted in the injury report Exhibit 7. The following injuries were found on Tukaram's person :-

10. We, now therefore turn to the question whether Tukaram and Laxmi are truthful witnesses, and whether would be safe us to accept their testimony. We have to examine their evidence and also that of Janardhan PW-5 in the background of the fact that they are not only very close relations of the deceased Malu, but, as is evident from the recitals contained in paragraph 2, are also inimical to the appellants.

Taking up the evidence of Tukaram PW-4 we find that both in the FIR and in his statement recorded in the trial Court, he has categorically alleged that the appellant Mahadeo Gambhir inflicted a blow with a stick on his left forearm. However, to our dismay, we find that the medical evidence indicates that he received no injury on his left forearm. He was examined by Dr. Vishwanath Bapat PW-2 who found that he had sustained inflammation over the right hand. This circumstance makes us have serious doubts about the time of the incident. We are inclined to accede to the submission of Ms. Mhatre, that this shows that the incident did not take place at 6.30 p.m. on 2-11-1981 as alleged by the prosecution but, sometimes later when it had become dark and the assailants could not be recognised. As a matter of fact, the injuries sustained by this witness do not inspire any confidence for another reason. Dr. Bapat PW-2 who examined Tukaram's injuries has nowhere mentioned in the injury report Exhibit 7, or in his statement in the trial Court, the time when he examined Tukaram. In his statement in the trial Court, Dr. Bapat said that he had examined him in the early hours of the morning. Examination of injuries in such a casual and perfunctory manner by a doctor examined by the prosecution, is bound to rebound on the prosecution. When viewed in the light of the fact that there was no injury on the left forearm of Tukaram, this circumstance is considered. We are left with no other option but to return to a conclusion that either injuries of Tukaram were caused in late hours of the evening of 2-11-1981, when it had become dark or the claim of Tukaram that he sustained the injuries is a manufactured one and his injury report is also manufactured. We are alive to the fact that such a scathing criticism should not be ordinarily be made but when the circumstances happen to be as pointed out above, we are left with no other option. This is not the only reason as to why we are not able to place reliance on the evidence of Tukaram. There are some other reasons also. Tukaram both in his FIR, and in his statement in the trial Court, has specifically alleged that the appellant Dattaram Gambhir assaulted Malu with an axe and the acquitted accused Laxman threw acid on him. However, the medical evidence belies this inasmuch as no injury attributable to axe, namely an incised wound or injuries resulting from throwing of acid were found by the autopsy Surgeon Dr. Joshi, PW-3., on the corpse of the deceased. It is true that in his examination-in-chief Dr. Joshi stated that injury No. 11 of the deceased could be caused from the blunt side of the blade of the axe but this, we are not inclined to believe for two reasons :-

When the aforesaid infirmities in the statement of Tukaram are evaluated in the backdrop of the fact that he is a highly interested witness, and is also inimical to the appellants, it becomes extremely hazardous., in our opinion, to sustain the conviction of the appellants on his testimony.

11. We now, take up the testimony of Laxmi PW-6, mother of the deceased. She claims that she received injuries during the incident. However, we have our grave doubts. As said earlier, the incident according to the prosecution took place on 1-11-1980 at 6.30 p.m. Laxmi was medically examined on 2-11-1981 at 4.15 p.m. by Dr. Bapat PW-2. Dr. Bapat has mentioned in her injury report that her injuries were fresh. It is common knowledge that injuries hardly remain fresh for about 8 to 10 hours at the most. That being so, there was no question of the injuries of Laxmi remaining fresh when they were examined by Dr. Bapat because at that time, they were 22 hours old. This, in our opinion, is by itself sufficient to throw out her claim of having received injuries during the course of the incident. But, matters do not end here. In this case, apart from her, her husband Hari is also alleged to have sustained injuries in the incident. Hari also was examined by Dr. Bapat PW-2 on 2-11-1981 at 4.15 p.m. We are completely at our wit's end as to how the same doctor could have examined two injured witnesses simultaneously. This obviously means that Dr. Bapat has conducted the medical examination on Laxmi in a thoroughly careless and perfunctory manner and actually the injuries of Laxmi and Hari were examined at two different times. In this connection, it is significant to point out that Tukaram son of Laxmi has neither alleged in the FIR nor in his statement in the Trial Court that Laxmi received injuries. Again, it is difficult to believe Laxmi because, in her statement in the trial Court, she stated that the appellant Dattaram Gambhir who had an axe also assaulted the deceased. As mentioned earlier, the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Joshi found no incised injury on the dead body of the deceased. The fall out of the aforesaid infirmities in the evidence of Laxmi is compatible with either of the two hypothesis :-