Back
2007 Supreme(Bom) 653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
D.G.Deshpande & S.R.Sathe, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra .Appellant
versus
Dilip Raghunath Chavan .Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.552 OF 1989.
Decided on : 3rd May, 2007
Advocate Appeared
Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh for the Appellant
Mr.S.M.Kazi for the Respondent
Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307 and 325 - Acquittal under - Appeal against - Accused, stabbed deceased father- in-law, mother-in- law and his wife with knife - Weapon of offence, knife recovered at instance of accused - No cogent evidence showing that injuries in question not possible by knife - Evidence of two injured witnesses remained cogent and consistent in lengthy cross-examination - Trial Court completely ignored evidence of injured eye-witness, wife of accused - Offence of murder and grievous hurt proved - Order of acquittal set aside - Appeal allowed - Accused convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC. - Merely because in the instant case depth of the injury was not about four inches but it was only about three and quarter inches or so, we can’t jump to discard the direct evidence of the injured eye witnesses particularly when the same is not at all shown to be unreliable. As pointed out above it appears that the learned trial Judge has wrongly proceeded with assumption that the doctor has given admission that the injuries in question are not possible due to knife before the Court. He has attached undue importance to some of the observations made by Dr. Nanaware in his cross-examination made in the trial Court long after the post-mortem, without correctly and fully appreciating the overall effect of his evidence. In fact, the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the overall evidence of Dr. Nanaware.
It is pertinent to note that the complainant Adik Mohite Exhibit 8, injured eye witness Sakharam Ganpat Jadhav-Exhibit 20 and another injured eye-witness Sulochana Dilip Chavan Exhibit 21 were searchingly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, but hardly any material could be brought out during their cross- examination to discredit their evidence. In our considered view the approach of the learned trial Judge was totally unrealistic, unreasonable and unacceptable. So, in our opinion this is a fit case where it is necessary to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge. In view of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has in fact brought on record cogent, consistence and convincing evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at the relevant time the accused assaulted Savitri with knife and thereby caused her death. He also gave knife blow on the vital part of the prosecution witness Sakharam and thereby caused serious injury which in the opinion of doctor was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The blows given to Savitri were also on vital part and Savitri died within few minutes after the assault. So, considering all these aspects we hold that accused is guilty of the offence of committing murder of Savitri and causing grevious hurt with deadly weapon to Sakharam. He has also caused injuries with deadly weapon to Sulochana. Thus, he is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and 326 of IPC.
S.R.SATHE, J
1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.50 of 1988 whereby the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302, 307 and 325 of I.P.C.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: Prosecution witness No.6 Sakharam Ganpat Jadhav was residing at village Tural alongwith his wife Savitri and their children, including his married daughter Sulochana the wife of the present accused Dilip Raghunath Chavan. Not only that, but even accused had come to their house a day prior to the date of incident. On that day he had suggested that he would take his wife Sulochana to Sakharappa. However, the prosecution witness No.6 Sakharam had suggested that first he (accused) should seek some job and secure accommodation for residence and then take Sulochana with him.
3. On the day of incident i.e. on 2.5.1988 Sakharam returned home in the evening. When he got down from the S.T. bus he found that accused was waiting for the bus. At that time, accused asked Sakharam as to whether he would be sending Sulochana with him or not. He was in angry mood. Sakharam tried to pacify him and told him that first he should get job and then take his wife. When Sakharam reached home, his wife Savitri, the deceased in the instant case told him that she told the accused that he should not take Sulochana till the arrival of Sakharam. On that day at night Sakharam and other family members waited for a long time with a hope that accused will return for taking meals. However, till late at night he did not return. Hence, the other family members finished their dinner and went to bed.
4. When prosecution witness Sakharam was sleeping in the courtyard, he received a blow with knife on his stomach. As a result of the same Sakharam woke up. When he opened his eyes he found that the accused was standing infront of him with knife in his hand and about to give another blow to Sakharam. Naturally, Sakharam raised shouts. Hearing the said shout his wife Savitri woke up, but the accused also gave knife blows on her chest and back. She had also raised shouts. Hearing their shouts Sulochana awoke, but the accused gave blow with knife to her also. When accused was trying to run away from the said place Sakharam tried to catch him, however, he could not succeed and the accused ran away from the said place. As a result of the knife blows received at the hands of accused Savitri fell on the ground, so also Sakharam.
5. It is the prosecution case, that complainant Adik Mohite who was having his house on the backside of the house of prosecution witness Sakharam, heard some shouts as "Marle, Marle" at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m. At that very time Ashok and Laxman Sakharam’s children came to his house weeping and they told that the accused assaulted Sakharam, Sulochana and Savitri. Adik Mohite therefore went to the house of Sakharam alongwith Ashok and Laxman. He found that Sakharam had sustained injuries. When Adik made queries with him Sakharam told him that his son in law i.e. accused assaulted him, his wife and Sulochana with knife. Even Savitri also told Adik that accused assaulted her with knife. Adik gave water to Savitri, however, within 10 to 15 minutes she succumbed to the injuries. On the next day morning, at about 10.00 O’Clock, Adik went to Sangameshwar Police Station which was at a distance of about 10 to 12 kilometres from Tural, and lodged a complaint wherein he narrated the incident and told the police that Sakharam, Savitri and Sulochana disclosed to him that they were assaulted by the accused with knife.
6. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered C.R.No.35 of 1988 against the accused for the offences mentioned above. Immediately thereafter i.e. on 3.5.1988 at about 11.15 a.m. police went to Tural and drew the inquest panchanama and sent the dead body for postmortem. They also drew the panchanama of the place of of
