2012 Supreme(Bom) 700
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & U.V. BAKRE, JJ.
Rajesh @ Maratha S/o. Sambahi Patil
Versus
State of Goa
Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2010
Decided on: 29-03-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants:Mahesh Amonkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against conviction - There was a fight between the accused and deceased - During the fight accused had threatened to kill the deceased - Accused also threatened the eye-witnesses telling them not to intervene in fight - Held - Assault was with the broken bottle and it was not on shoulder but on the neck which is the vital part of the body - Accused did not leave the deceased after the said broken bottle was removed from his hands - Accused picked up the plastic pipe and hit it on the head of the deceased - When the plastic pipe broke, he threw away the piece of pipe which was in his hand and then picked up a stone to assault the deceased - This conduct of the accused show the intention of the accused to finish the deceased - Evidence beyond reasonable doubt establishes that the accused had made preparation to kill the deceased - Act falls under Section 302 - Conviction cannot be faulted.
There is no substance in the argument of the advocate for the accused that the assault was not on vital part of the body. The assault was with the broken bottle and it was not on shoulder but on the neck which is the vital part of the body. It should be kept in mind that the accused did not leave the deceased after the said broken bottle was removed from his hands. The accused picked up the plastic pipe and hit it on the head of the deceased. When the plastic pipe broke, he threw away the piece of the pipe which was in his hand and then picked up a stone to assault the deceased. This conduct of the accused, undoubtedly, shows the intention of the accused to finish the deceased.
The evidence on record, beyond reasonable doubt, establishes that the accused had made preparations to kill the deceased and with the sole intention of killing the deceased he had assaulted him with broken glass bottle and with the plastic pipe and lastly wanted to assault him with a stone. Court is unable to subscribe to the view of the advocate for the accused that the case falls under Section 304, Part II of the IPC. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the act of the accused falls under Section 302 of IPC Therefore, the impugned judgment and order holding the accused guilty of murder cannot be faulted with and this is a right conclusion based upon correct appreciation of evidence on record. The conviction and sentence being in accordance with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, no interference is called for.
U.V. Bakre, J.
This appeal is filed by the accused, in Sessions Case No.5 of 2006, who has been convicted and sentenced of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is as follows : The accused and the deceased (Sana Shaikh) were labourers working in the wholesale fish market at Margao. There was enmity between the accused and the deceased since prior to the incident. On 01/11/2005, in the evening time, at about 7.00 p.m., on the occasion of Deepawali, crackers were brought by Manik and Sana in front of Suzie Bar and were burst. Thereafter, Manik and Sana entered the Bar when the accused started abusing them. Then, there was altercation between the accused and the deceased and abuses were exchanged. At about 10.15 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., in front of Rebello's Hospital, there was a fight between the accused and the deceased. At about 00.15 hours on 02/11/2005, at the said Wholesale Fish Market, Margao, the accused stabbed the deceased namely Sana Shaikh with a broken glass bottle of cold drink known as "Slice", on the left side of the neck and also assaulted him with plastic pipe and thereby committed his murder.
3. The prosecution examined altogether 19 witnesses in order to prove the charge. PW1, Sandeep Malkarnekar acted as one of the panch witnesses for panchanama of arrest-cum-attachment, which is at Exhibit 11 under which the accused was arrested and his clothes were attached. PW2, Abdul Sattar Shaikh is the brother of the deceased and who lodged the complaint (Exhibit 13) at Margao Town Police Station, upon which the offence under Crime No.304 of 2005 under section 302 of I.P.C. came to be registered against the accused. PW3, Gaus Shaikh, PW4, Mehboob Hangal, PW5, Imtiaz Shaikh, PW6, Mugut sab Pallikotti, PW9, Sarvar Badshah are all fish loaders (labourers) who as well as PW7, Khajasab Valli and PW8, Shaikh Shah Vali, both Security Guards at the Wholesale Fish Market, Margao are eye witnesses. PW10, Dr. Siddharth Banaulikar, the Assistant Lecturer from the Department of Forensic Laboratory, Goa Medical College, Bambolim conducted the Autopsy examination over the dead body of the deceased, the report of which is at Exhibit 29. PW11, Eddy Tavares acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of scene of offence and sketch which are at Exhibit 61. PW12, Suzie Rodrigues is the owner of Bar by name "Suzie Bar" which is at the said Wholesale Fish Market at Margao. PW13, Dr. R.K. Jain, Senior Scientific Officer, working at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad examined the exhibits which were attached during investigation. PW14, Anwar Khan is a Rickshaw Driver, who acted as one of the pancha witnesses for the Inquest Panchanama which is at Exhibit 49. PW15, Pravin Naik is the photographer who, at the request of the police, took out photographs at the scene of offence. PW16, Kamlakant Pradhan, is a waiter in the hotel situated in the said market and he is also partly an eye witness. PW17, S. Sathyan is the Senior Scientific Expert working with Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and he also examined the exhibits which were attached during investigation. PW18, S.B. Faria is the Special Judicial Magistrate for Salcete, Quepem and Sanguem. Lastly, PW19, Santosh Desai was then working as Police Inspector at Margao Police Station and he conducted the investigation.
4. The case of the accused was that he has been falsely implicated in the case and in fact the deceased and his friends who have come as eyewitnesses had attempted to assault him and he acted in private defence. The accused did not examine any witness.
5. Upon the assessment of the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, South Goa(Trial Judge) found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was wholly relia