SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Bom) 2444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
P.V. Hardas and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.
Ganapati Laxman Waghmode and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1992
Decided On: 04.12.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : Jaydeep Mane, Adv.
For Respondents: H.J. Dedhia, APP

Headnote:[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 Conviction for murder. Where evidence of sole eye-witness to incident involving accused persons was cogent, consistent and trustworthy therefore accused persons liable to be convicted under Section 302/34, IPC. It is true that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole witness. What is required is quality and not quantity. The evidence of PW-4 ’S’ appears to us to be implicitly reliable and Court do not find any grounds whatsoever for discarding the evidence of PW-4 ’S’. ’S’ is corroborated by the testimony of the other witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution. Thus, failure to examine other independent witnesses though available would not merit rejection of the testimony of PW-4 ’S’, whom Court find to be a reliable witness.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. Hardas, J.

1. The Appellants-Original Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years and each accused to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to undergo R.I. for 6 months, R.I. for 2 years and each accused to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to undergo further R.I. for 6 months and imprisonment for life and each accused to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to undergo further R.I. for 2 years, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, by Judgment dated 18.7.1992, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1992, by this Appeal challenge their conviction and sentence. Since Appellant No. 2/Original Accused No. 2 had expired, the Appeal filed by him was dismissed as abated. This Appeal therefore is restricted to the challenge to the conviction and sentence of Accused No. 1 Ganapati, Accused No. 3 Kalappa, Accused No. 4 Bhimashankar and Accused No. 5 Ramesh. Facts as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus.

PW-20 Head Constable Baburao Dige, who on 18.10.1991 was on duty at the Civil Hospital at Solapur from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m., learnt about the admission of one injured in the hospital at about 9.00 p.m. The Medical Officer on examining the injured declared him as dead and the information was communicated to the Sadar Bazar Police Station. The P.S.O. of Sadar Bazar Police Station, PW-21 ASI Ajij Attar issued a letter at Exhibit 51 in the name of PW-20 Head Constable Dige for taking further action. He accordingly took PW-4 Shivanna to the Sadar Bazar Police Station and recorded his statement at Exhibit 19. He then handed over the complaint/statement of PW-4 Shivanna to PW-21 ASI Attar. According to him, the complaint was scribed between 10.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. On the next day between 7.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. an inquest panchnama of the dead body was drawn and was sent to the Sadar Bazar Police Station.

PW-21 ASI Ajij Attar, who was attached to the Sadar Bazar Police Station and was on duty on 18.10.1991, received information about death of injured in the Civil Hospital at Solapur. He accordingly instructed Police Constable Dige to take further action. Police Constable Dige brought the complaint lodged by PW-4 Shivanna to the Police Station and on the basis of the said complaint, PW-21 ASI Attar registered an offence under Sections 147 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He also then sent a message to the Valsang Police Station about the incident and requested them to take further steps.

2. PW-19 PHC Kashinath Fulari, who on 18.10.1991 was attached to the Valsang Police Station, received message from the control room about a person resident of Village Yatnal succumbing to his injuries in the hospital and also that a complaint had been recorded. The said message was received at about 1.00 a.m. on 19.10.1991. PW-19 Head Constable Fulari was also instructed to take precaution at village Yatnal. PW-19 PHC Fulari immediately deputed one Head Constable and one Constable to village Yatnal for maintaining the peace. PSI came to the Police station at about 4.30 a.m. and was informed about the message. PW-22 PSI Wagh thereafter went to village Yatnal. Meanwhile, the FIR, inquest panchnama and other papers were received at Police Station Valsang from the Sadar Bazar Police Station. Accordingly, an offence was registered. PW-18 PC Naikwadi produced Accused No. 5 Ramesh and Accused Bhimashankar, who were arrested and the clothes on their person were seized under panchnama.

PW-22 PSF Prabhakar Wagh, who was attached to the Valsang Police Station and was on patrolling duty on 18.10.1991, on his return to the Police Station at about 4.30 a.m. was informed about the incident at Yatnal in which Genappa had died. He accordingly went to village at 6.30 a.m. alongwith the police staff and from the Police Patil learnt that PW-4 Shivanna






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top