Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 1162
2006(9) Supreme 623
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe - Appellant
versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2006
Decided on 22-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sudhanshu Choudhary and Naresh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : V.N. Raghupathy (for Aniruddha P. Mayee), Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
When evidence was consistent and was corroborated by medical evidence, a few minor discrepancies would not help accused.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Appellant with three other accused assaulted deceased with knife and sickle - PW4 accompanying deceased and PW5 a neutral person driver of a vehicle were eye witnesses of occurrence - Conviction of all four accused by trial Court - High Court acquitted accused No. 1 but maintained conviction of accused No. 2, 3 and 4 - Appeal by accused No. 4 alone - PW4 had stated in his statement before police that accused No. 2 and 3 and one unknown person assaulted deceased - PW4 however identified appellant as that unknown man during trial - No reason why PW4 would falsely implicate him - PW5 corroborated evidence of PW4 - Their evidence was corroborated by dying declaration given to PW6 - Evidence was consistent and was corroborated by medical evidence - No reason to interfere.
Held : In this case there are two eye witnesses PW4 and PW5. As regards the evidence of PW4, he has stated that at the time of the incident the accused no.2 Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari and accused no.3 Premraj Hiraman Chaudhari and one unknown person got down from the Maruti Van. He has further stated that the unknown man gave a blow with an iron sickle on the head of the deceased. He further stated that thereafter the unknown man got hold of the deceased and accused no. 2 and 3 inflicted blows on him with iron knife and sickle.(Para 6)
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the name of the appellant was not mentioned by PW4 hence the chance of false implication of the appellant in this case cannot be ruled out.(Para 7)
We do not agree with this contention. PW4 clearly identified the appellant as the unknown man in his deposition before the Trial Court, and there is no reason why PW4 should falsely implicate him.(Para 8)
The evidence of PW4 is also corroborated by the evidence of PW5, who is a neutral person being the driver of the Maruti Van. There was no reason for PW5 to falsely implicate the appellant. PW5 has clearly stated in his evidence that the appellant inflicted wounds on the deceased.(Para 9)
The evidence of PW4 and PW5 find further corroboration in the dying declaration made by the deceased to PW6.(Para 10)
Learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the veracity of the dying declaration through the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination. The Doctor stated that it was possible that after sustaining the wounds the deceased may have gone into an unconscious state instantaneously.(Para 11)
We note that the Doctor only stated that it was possible that the deceased may have become unconscious instantaneously. However, there is a difference between something being possible and something being probable or certain. PW6 before whom the dying declaration was recorded, stated that the deceased had given his dying declaration before he reached the hospital. Thus, we see no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration.(Para 12)
The evidence in this case is consistent and is corroborated by the medical evidence. A few mere minor discrepancies here and there do not help the case of the appellant. (Para 13)
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J. - This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 17.10.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 1992 by which the High Court has affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court by judgment dated 20.2.1992 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as well as fine of Rs.200/-, in default of which two months R.I. was also awarded.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. There were four accused originally before the Trial Court namely (1) Anil Shivram Pawar, (2) Manilal Hiraram Chaudhari, (3) Premraj HIraram Chaudhari and (4) Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe (the appellant in the present case.) All the four accused had been convicted by the Trial Court but in appeal the High Court acquitted accused no.1 but maintained the conviction of accused no.2, 3 and 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. In the present case the appellant is only accused no.4 Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe @ Bapu.
4. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 13.2.1991 Bhaulal Jadhav the deceased along with PW4 Lotu Eko Patil was proceeding from Phuphanagari to Jalgaon on bike Bajaj M-80 and when they reached on a way to Jalgaon near Khedi Phata at a distance of 3 kms. the appellants, who were in Maruti Van parked by the side of road got down. It is further alleged that the accused no.2, 3 and 4 then stopped vehicle on which Bhaulal and PW4 were proceeding. The accused No.3 Premraj caught hold Bhaulal and accused no.2 and 4 i.e. Manilal and Gangaram assaulted Bhaulal with knife. The complainant PW4 then tried to rescue Bhaulal, however, accused no.2 Manilal extended threats to PW4 and, therefore, PW4 started proceeding towards Jalgaon. Bhaulal was also trying to save himself, however, the accused no.2 and 3 chased him and assaulted with weapon like knife. PW4 then immediately went to Taluka Police Station Jalgaon on a vehicle of some another person. PW14 Hamid Khan Miya Khan Pathan was holding charge of Station Diary at the relevant time at about 11.45 a.m.. PW4 then disclosed him about the incident that Bhaulal Jadhav is assaulted by Manilal, Premraj and one unknown person. Entry in the Station Diary to that effect was immediately taken by PW14 and Police Constable namely Ukhardu Koli, Sharad Vispute and Pramod, who were on duty at Police Station, were immediately sent to the spot along with PW4, however, by that time injured Bhaulal Jadhav was taken to the hospital in a tractor by one Bharat Jadhav as he was also proceeding to Jalgaon and that tractor was also owned by Bhaulal. The Police Constable Ukhardu Koli and others and complainant then proceeded to the hospital. Doctor from hospital examined Bhaulal and declared him dead and, therefore, Police Constable Ukhardu Koli gave information to the Taluka Police Station approximately at about 12.45 noon about the death of Bhaulal and PW14 thereafter recorded complaint of PW4 and on the basis of said complaint registered crime No.16/1991 against the present appellants for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 302 read with Sections 34 and 341, 506 of I.P.C. PW17 Dhanraj Walukar took up the investigation of the said crime. He visited the hospital, held inquest over the dead body, referred the same for post mortem, recorded statements of certain witnesses. Thereafter investigation of the said crime was taken over by P.I. PW15 P.S. Suryawanshi who arrested accused no.1, interrogated him and attached revolver at his instance. Record further shows that PW15 thereafter handed over investigation of the said crime to PW17 who then made attempts to arrest accused, as the accused no.2, 3 and 4 were absconding he succeeded in arresting accused no.2 Manilal only on 22.3.1991. During the course of interrogation and while accused Manilal was in the custody of Police he made discloser statement, showed his willingness to produce the weapon from the place wher
