SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Bom) 362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
vishnu Sahai, J.
Bharat Yeshwant Hegade ..... Appellant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1988, decided on 25-7-1994.
Advocates appeared :
P.M. Mengane, for appellant.
S.D. Rupawate, A.P.P. for the State.

Headnote:Section 154-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 114-Lodging of First Information Report-Delay in-It could have been utilised in accused person is false implication.

       Section 163-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 3 and 114-Death-Causing of by assault by birth-Money demand set motive Dot mentioned in statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C, hence, cannot be accepted as motive.

       Sections 161 and 185-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3-Circumstantial evidence-Credibility of recovery if article.

       Blood stained sickle recovered after 5 weeks from deep well after immersion of water-It showed tenant was planted.

       Sections 161 and 235-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 3, 60 and 61 Ocular and circumstantial evidence.

       Effect of infirmities in-Benefit of doubt to be given to accused.

       Section 3.

       See Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-8ections 161 and 185.

       Sections 3, 60 and 61.

       See Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 161 and 235.

       Sections 3 and 114.

       See Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 161.

       Section 114.

       See Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 154.

JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAIM J.:---The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 30-12-1987 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 112 of 1987, convicting him under section 307 I.P.C. and 506 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 6 months R.I. under the first count and to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo R.I. for 2 months has under the second count has come up in appeal before me.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Mangala Shivaji Hegade is the wife of the Shivaji Yeshwant Hegade. Her husband Shivaji had eight brothers. One of them being the appellant. All the brothers along with their families lived in different portions of the same house. Her husband Shivaji had a second wife namely Dhondawabai. On 23-11-1986, some time in the evening the appellant demanded Rs. 200/- from Shivaji and on the latters refusal,is alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences. The same evening after dinner at about 8 or 9 P.M. the informant and a victim slept in a concrete hall of their house. In their adjoining house room Dhondawabai is alleged to have been sleeping with a newly born child. At about 1 A.M. The informant woke up on hearing the sound of blows of sickle and saw in electric light that the appellant was assaulting her husband Shivaji. It is alleged that on seeing this, the informant started running to inform her inlaws. The appellant is alleged to have told her to sleep, otherwise, she would be murdered. Consequently, she remained in the room till the time the appellant was there. Thereafter, the appellant ran away. The informant then came out of the room and informed her inlaws as also her brothers-in-laws who are also alleged to have woken up. hereafter, a bullock cart was arranged and in the same, she along with brothers-in-law Bajrang, Shankar and Shahaji and her mother-in-law Gitabai took Shivaji to hospital. It is alleged that that her brother-in-law Soma Hegde P.W. 6 followed them. After travelling some distance, they saw a rickshaw and on the same, Shivaji Yeshwant Hegade was brought to Civil Hospital, Solapur.

3. At the Civil Hospital, Solapur on 24-11-1986, at 2 .45 a.m. Anil Bhimrao Khadtare medically examined Shivaji. He found on his person the following injuries:

1. Incised cut-wound rt. to left oblique on rt. fore head 3".

2. Incised wound on vortex 2" x bone deep on left frount to parietal region.

3. Incised wound to the left parietal 3.5" bone deep.

4. Inceased wound lower end of the arm right side 3" oblique bone deep.

5. Incised wound starting above to the No. 1 injury, 5", on the rt. lateral to head.

The doctor also proved the X-Ray reports pertaining to the victim and deposed theat the X-ray of skull revealed fracture of parietal bone and X-ray of the nasal bone revealed fracture of nasal bone.

In the cross- examination, the doctor denied the defence suggestion that these injuries of the victim could not result in his death.

4. From the Civil Hospital, Solapur information was sent to Salgarvasti police station. From the aforesaid police station, P.W. 10 P.S.I. Raja Waman Hullyakar received information and immediately left for the Civil Hospital, Solapur. At 5 a.m. P.S.I. Hullyalkar recorded the F.I.R. of informant Mangala Shivaji Hegade, P.W. 4 (exh. 10). In the aforesaid F.I. R. , the appellant is named.

5. After recording the F.I.R., P.S.I. Hullyalkar went to the place of incident and prepared a spot Panchaname. He took the Iungi, pillow, blanket etc. in his possession. He also took chaddar and bulb from the place of incident in his possession. He then tried to search the appellant but, he could not be traced. On 28-12-1986, the appellant was arrested in Mandrup area. He is alleged to have admitted his involvement in the instant crime and to have disclosed and that he could get the sickle which he had used in the incident recovered.




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top