JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1989, convicting and sentencing them to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months, have come up in appeal before me.

2.The prosecution case in short runs as under :---

Appellant Choklet Pawar is the father of appellants Suresh Pawar and Meetar Pawar. The victim Entivan Bhosale, P.W. 2 was sister's son of Choklet Pawar. There was enmity between the victim and the appellants because the former had refused to marry the daughter of the appellant Choklet Pawar about 1½ years prior to the incident. Relations between them were also strained because before the incident, the victim was prosecuted for offences of theft, dacoity under the Bombay Police Act and he had a feeling that the appellants were giving information to the police against him.

On 31st January, 1989 at about 10 a.m., while the victim was in his house, the appellants came in a rickshaw and asked him to accompany them to see a film in Natraj theatre. The victim sat alongwith them in the rickshaw and after they crossed the Mhatre bridge, the appellants started inflicting fist blows on him. The victim thereupon ran to the river side. The appellants chased him and appellant Choklet Pawar is alleged to have been inflicted a Knife blow on his back. The victim fell down, as a result thereof, and the clothes he was putting on, got stained with blood. About half an hour later, the police came on the place of the incident and took him to Sassoon Hospital in a rickshaw.

3.The injuries of the victim Entivan Bhosale were medically examined in the Sassoon Hospital, Pune by Dr. Anupama Date, P.W. 1 the same day at about 12.00 noon. She found on his person a Contused Lacerated Wound of the dimensions of 4 cm. x 1 cm. on the right side of the back of thoracic region. Dr. Date stated that the said injury was dangerous to life and most probably, there was an intrathoracic connection. In her opinion, the said injury could be caused by knife (Article 6 shown to her).

4.The F.I.R. of the victim was recorded by P.S.I. Ganpat Nikam, P.W. 5 on the dictation of the victim in Sassoon Hospital, Pune on the same day at 2.30 p.m. The F.I.R. is at Exhibit 17. Its perusal shows that there is an endorsement on it of Dr. Anupama Date to the effect that the victim was in a fit condition to make it and it was recorded in her presence.

5.Investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Nikam. During the course of it, on pointing out of appellant Suresh Pawar, a knife was recovered but since the recovery was from an open place and the public panch Chandrashekhar Nimbalkar, P.W. 3 who was examined to prove it, stated that till the time of giving evidence, he had acted as a panch on 8 to 9 occasions and the other public panch Namdeo had also acted as a panch with him I am not inclined to believe it. After completing the investigation, P.S.I. Nikam chargesheeted the appellants.

6.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court, the appellants were charged for an offence under section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. The appellant Choklet Pawar, in the alternative, was charged for an offence under section 307 I.P.C. To the charges, the appellants pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.

During trial, in all, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Out of them, the victim Entiwan Bhosale was an eye witness. In defence, no witness was examined.

The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinabove.

7.The short point in this appeal is whether the statement of the solitary eye witness Entiwan Bhosale, P.W. 2 inspires confidence against all the appellants. The statement has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the fact that he is an inimical witness

Click Here to Read the rest of this document