2006 Supreme(Bom) 1114
BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT PANAJI, GOA
RANJANA DESAI & N.A. BRITTO, JJ.
Mr. Duggan Adrian Kevin - Applicant/Accused
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2005
Decided on: 18th July, 2006
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. M. Teles, for the applicant: Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against conviction in murder case - Defence of accused one Italian came and assaulted both of them - Accused and deceased both British Nationals - Both resided in guest house - Absence of eye-witness - Deceased lying on floor in unconscious state with injuries bleeding - Circumstantial evidence - Accused and deceased drank and danced - One Italian entered and introduced to him - Italian poured something in beer after drinking beer he felt uncomfortable - They returned to guest house - Italian entered into guest house and started interfering with girlfriend of accused - Assault with sharp weapon by Italian on chest and killed with same weapon - The explanation of injuries on the person of accused is not inflexible rule which is applicable in all situations - Screaming of lady only came out - Absence of statement of accused regarding cause of injuries - No complaint lodged by accused regarding at tack by stranger - Accused was drowsy - Plea of accused is a false defence - Conviction by Session under Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment - Three formidable injuries found - Lung punctured and collapsed - Not a self inflicted injury - Sort of fight between accused and deceased - Scaling down of conviction - Appeal partly allowed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3 and 8 - Motive in murder. - In a closed room accused and deceased found alone one was dead and another was alive, motive of crime cannot be judged.
N.A. Britto, J.
This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for six months.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on or about 25.12.2003, between 4.30 to 5.20 a.m., at Vagator, Anjuna, Goa, the accused committed the murder of Ms. Catherine Hazell Campbell, aged about 43 years.
3. The case of the accused was that he has been falsely implicated. The defepce of the accused in brief is that a Italian came and assaulted both of them.
4. There is no dispute that the accused and the deceased, both British Nationals, checked in room no.3 of Mahindra Guest House, situated at Vagator, owned by the family of Pandurang and Sheetal Govekar, which consists of five rooms. It is a small time guest house, which did not have either a receptionist or a room boy or any security and once rooms are given to the guests, the guests are even entitled to put their own lock and go about.
5. On 25.10.2003, at about 4.30 a.m., PW 3/Sheetal Govekar, heard a lady screaming and the said screams came from the direction of their guest house. Her family lives at a distance of about 30 metres or so from the guest house. PW 3/Sheetal, came near the guest house and found that the screams were coming from room no. 3. She knocked at the door and said "Hello" but nobody opened the door. The lady continued her cries and screaming. She returned back and woke up her son PW 2/Datta Prasad Govekar and both returned to the said room and then PW 2/Datta Prasad, knocked at the door but the door was not opened and meanwhile the screaming and the cries continued. PW 2/Datta Prasad, again returned home and informed his father. PW 1/Pandurang Govekar, as to what had happened and, thereafter, the latter informed the police on No. 100. PW 2/Datta Prasad Govekar returned to the room and again knocked at the door and he still heard the lady crying and he latched the door from outside and he informed the inmates of the room that the door was latched from outside. Meanwhile, PW 5/Sawant and PW 7/Ibrampurkar, Police constables, who were on Patrol duty, received a wireless message on their wireless set stating that there was a fight in Mahindra Guest House at Vagator, and both of them on their motorcycle, driven by PW 5-Sawant, came to the guest house. The Police Constables certainly did not require a board showing the name of the guest house, which at the relevant time was not there to identify the said guest house and therefore the submission that they could not have reached there cannot be accepted. Beat constables are expected to know about the existence of guest houses within their beat area. PW 5/Sawant and PW 7/Ibrampurkar, found the door of the room of the said hotel latched from outside and they peeped into and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood and the accused sitting on the cot. They did not open the room. They also found PW 2/Datta Prasad and PW 3/Sheetal Govekar there. Whether PW 2/Datta Prasad or PW 3/Sheetal Govekar, were standing in the said guest house or on the road, which is adjacent to it, at a distance of about 5 metres, again would be of no consequence. PW 5/Sawant and PW 7/Ibrampurkar, informed the Anjuna police station about the incident and, thereafter, PW 12/police Inspector Nandakishor Raikar, reached there along with other police personnel. Upon his arrival, the police opened the door. Whether the door was opened by the I.O. as stated by PW 5/Sawant and PW 7/Ibrampukar, or PW 5/Sawant and PW 7/Ibrampurkar as stated by PW 2/Datta Prasad and PW 3/Sheetal, would again be of no consequence. They all saw that the deceased was lying on the floor in a pool of blood and the accused was sitting on the bed. If earlier, PW 5/Sawant and PW 7/Ibrampurkar had seen the deceased either through the window as stated by them, would not make any difference.
6. Since the accused had sustained injuries, PW 12/P.I. Raikar, came with the accused fi