IMPORTANT POINTS
When prosecution case is proved by direct evidence, motive takes a back seat.
Discrepancy in respect of time of actual lodging of FIR is not fatal to entire prosecution case when ocular evidence is corroborated by Medical evidence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307 – Prosecution of appellant accused for committing murder of deceased and causing injuries to one another by inflicting injuries by a sharp edged weapon – Conviction by Trial Court upheld by High Court – Appeal – FIR lodged by injured witness PW1 – No dispute regarding number of injuries received by PW1 – Appellant named in FIR by PW1 – Discrepancy in respect of time of actual lodging of FIR not fatal to prosecution case particularly since ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence – Possibility of injured witness losing track of time by reason of sufferance of grave injuries could also not be ruled out – Prosecution case being proved by direct evidence, non establishment of motive on part of accused, not of much consideration – No dispute as to identity of appellant accused – Testimony of Pw1 as natural witness rightly accepted by Courts below – Recovery of weapons of assault and other articles at instance of appellant accused – No reason to differ with findings of conviction recorded by courts below – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13, 14).
       Facts of the case : —
       1.The appellant herein in the instant case was prosecuted for committing murder of deceased and causing injuries to informant by assaulting them with means of shape edged weapon. Trial Court convicted appellant u\s 302 and 307 of IPC. On appeal conviction was upheld by High Court.
       2.Aggrieved by said order of conviction and sentence, appellant has preferred present appeal.
       Findings of the Court :
       a)The Court held that even though there existed a discrepancy regarding time of lodging of Fir. However said discrepancy was not fatal to prosecution case since ocular evidence was corroborated by Medical evidence.
       b)So far as non establishment of motive on part of accused was concerned, it was held that when prosecution case is proved by direct evidence, motive takes a back seat.
       c)Testimony of PW1 as a natural witness was rightly accepted by courts below. Weapons of assault and other articles were recovered at instance of appellant accused.
       d)Conviction of appellant by court below could not be faulted with.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench at Aurangabad dated 30.6.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3.2.2001 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jalana finding the appellant guilty of commission of an offence under Section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- respectively, was affirmed.

3.The prosecution case is as under :-

A First Information Report lodged by Sandhu (P.W. 1) was recorded at about 11 p.m. on 7.8.1999 at a hospital in relation to an incident which had taken place at a place known as Bhakardan. P.W.1 and the deceased Janardhan Dalvi allegedly were going to attend a weekly bazaar which is held every Saturday. They were going on foot. Appellant Santosh crossed them from the opposite direction. He, however, although went ahead, but all of a sudden came back and from behind assaulted the deceased first. While P.W. 1 made an attempt to prevent him from doing so, he also attacked him with a sharp edged weapon as a result whereof he suffered an injury on his head. Janardhan tried to run away, but he was chased and assaulted by a sharp edged weapon. Appellant later on ran away. Janardhan died on the spot.

4.Before the learned Trial Judge, apart from P.W.1 some other witnesses were also examined. Appellant, as noticed herein before, was found guilty by the learned Trial Judge. His appeal has been dismissed by the High Court.

5.Mr. K. Rajeev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal would submit that credibility of P.W. 1 as an eye witness is in question as he had made an attempt to implicate Radhakishan falsely. It was urged that the alleged motive for commission of the offence namely giving of a slap to the accused by the deceased on an earlier occasion having not been proved, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It was contended that there exists a discrepancy in regard to the time factor with regard to the lodging of the First Information Report, as although according to P.W.1, it was lodged at 9 p.m. The Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 stated that he had recorded the same at 11.45 p.m. It was furthermore submitted that seizure of the articles purported to be at the instance of the appellant herein has not been proved.

6.Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, supported the impugned judgment.

7.Homicidal nature of death of the deceased and sufferance of injuries by P.W. 1 is not in dispute. Deceased had suffered two stab injuries, one on the middle of his back and other on his chest. As indicated hereinbefore, in the First Information Report itself, it has been alleged that the deceased was assaulted with a sharp edged weapon from the back first and later on he was chased and killed. Sufferance of a large number of injuries by P.W. 1 Sandhu is also not in dispute as would be evident from the medical report.

8.He suffered the following injuries:-

(i)Incised injury on chest Rt. Side about 4 cm × 1/2cm × Muscle depth sharp regular margin. Elliptical in shape Red base.

(ii)Incised injury on Rt. Parital region about 4cm × 1/2cm × muscle depth Red base, Regular sharp margine Eliptical shape.

(iii)Incised injury on back over Thorasic vertebra about 2cm × 1/2 cm on Eliptical shape, Regular sharp margin Red base.

(iv)Incised injury on Ltd. Shoulder Eliptical shape 1/2 cm Red base Regular sharp margin.

(v)Incised injury on Rt. Side of neck about 1/2 cm × = cm, Red base Regular Sharp margin.

(vi)Incised injury at the base of Rt. Thumb about 1/2 cm × 1/2cm Red base Eliptical shape Regular sharp margin.

(vii)Contusio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 687

2007(4) Supreme 22SUPREME COURT OF INDIA[From Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)]S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ Santosh@Santukrao—AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra—RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 704 of 2007Decided on : 09-05-2007

IMPORTANT POINTSWhen prosecution case is proved by direct evidence, motive takes a back seat.Discrepancy in respect of time of actual lodging of FIR is not fatal to entire prosecution case when ocular evidence is corroborated by Medical evidence.

2007(4) Supreme 22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[From Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)]
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ
Santosh@Santukrao—Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 704 of 2007
Decided on : 09-05-2007

IMPORTANT POINTS
When prosecution case is proved by direct evidence, motive takes a back seat.
Discrepancy in respect of time of actual lodging of FIR is not fatal to entire prosecution case when ocular evidence is corroborated by Medical evidence.