2008 Supreme(Bom) 1492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BILAL NAZKI, A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ
Arvind Gajanan Patil & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 168 OF 2001
DECIDED ON : 14-10-2008
Mr. A.P. MUNDARGI with V.V. PURWANT, for the appellants.
Mrs. V.R. BHOSALE, APP, for the Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. S.G. DESHMUKH with ABHIJEET KANDARKAR, for the Respondent No.2.
Headnote:Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3-Interested witness- Credibility of.-Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants pointed out the antecedents of PW 1, admitted by him in the cross-examination and contended that he is not a reliable witness. He also submitted that PW 1 is related to the victim as the wife of the victim is the cousin sister of the witness and, therefore, he is an interested witness. Court does not find any substance in these contentions inasmuch as only because PW 1 had a criminal antecedents and only because he is related to the victim, his evidence cannot be discarded on those grounds alone, if it were otherwise truthful.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3-Motive to commit murder.-In case even if it is assumed that there was motive of the accused to commit murder of the victim, that by itself cannot prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3 and 27-Seizure of vehicle-Involvement of accused-Proof of.-The accused are permanent residents of the same village where the incident occurred and that on the day of the incident there was a fair in the village. So finding of vehicles of the accused in the village and also near the place of incident cannot by itself lead to any inference, that too beyond any reasonable doubt, as to involvement of the accused in the alleged offences.
1. Six full brothers have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2001 passed in Session Case No. 151 of 1998, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, holding all of them guilty of having committed murder of one Krishna Sakharam Patil (hereinafter referred to as “the victim” for the sake of brevity) and also of assaulting another person, Prabhakar Shankar Patil. They have been punished accordingly.
2. The Session case arose out of two incidences which according to the prosecution, took place on the same day within a period of about half an hour and were connected to each other. The six appellants were charged for commission of offence, punishable under section 147, 148, 302, 397 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 27 of the Arms Act. All the appellants have been punished under section 302, read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years. All the accused are also convicted for commission of offence of assault and have been punished under Section 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Each of them is sentenced on this count to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. . The impugned order further states that all of them having been convicted for the principal offences read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they are not convicted for the offences punishable under section 147, 148 and the principal offences read with section 149 of I.P.C. In other words, they are acquitted of these offences, including offence under section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. All the appellants herein for the sake of convenience are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the same sequence in which they were charged and tried by the Sessions Court.
1. Arving Gajanan Patil - A-1
2. Vasant Gajanan Patil - A-2
3.Ganesh Gajanan Patil - A-3
4. Mohan Gajanan Patil - A-4
5. Narayan Gajanan Patil - A-5
6. Janardan Gajanan Patil - A-6
4. The case of the prosecution, as it appears not only from the report made under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also from the impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge, in short is as under.
The victim was conducting a business of purchase of land, construction of houses thereon and selling them out. A-4 was also conducting the same business at the same place i.e. Atali village. There was a business rivalry between them. One Prabhakar Patil was helping A-4 in conducting the business. On account of business rivalry, a dispute had occurred between them, which was partly settled some time before the occurrence of two incidences in issue.
One Gajanan Bhoir (PW 1) is resident of another village Mandagaon. One Surekha (PW 4) wife of the victim is the daughter of Pandurang Bhoir. PW4 is the cousin sister of PW 1. One Narmada, the full sister of PW 4, is given in marriage to one Jagdish Patil, who is also resident of same village Atali. Thus, both the married sisters are staying at village Atali after their marriage. PW 1 was also participating in the business that was being conducted by the victim. Therefore, PW 1 used to often come to village Atali, not only to look after his business that was being conducted by him with victim, but also to meet his both aforesaid married sisters.
On 12th April 1998 there was a fair of the village-deity at village Atali. Prabhakar Patil PW 2 is the injured of the first incidence. All the accused first went to the house of (PW 2). At that time PW 2 was seen by the accused on the road near his house, when all the accused assaulted him and asked him the whereabouts of the victim. The accused attacked PW 2 with chopper and sword. Thereafter the accused went in search of the victim on their mother