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

2016 Supreme(Bom) 248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
B. P. Dharmadhikari and V. M. Deshpande, JJ.
Omprakash – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2013
Decided On : 17.02.2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr R. M. Daga, Advocate for appellant
Mr R. S. Nayak, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

Important Point – First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia of prosecution case nor it is an end of prosecution case.

Headnote:(A)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Axe seized from appellant – Re-appreciation of prosecution case shows that prosecution has successfully brought guilt of appellant to home – Evidence on record clearly establishes that appellant is author of axe blows on deceased resulting into his death – Appeal dismissed.

       (B) Criminal Law – FIR – First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia of prosecution case nor it is an end of prosecution case – It is starting point of prosecution case – It just sets criminal law in motion – A police officer is empowered to investigate into a matter when commission of a cognizable offence is brought to his notice – It is sufficient that a document for treating it as a first information report, discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

       Result – Criminal Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :

V. M. Deshpande, J.

1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2012 on 7th March 2013 recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Rameshwar @ Ramu and consequently, he ordered sufference of life imprisonment by the appellant and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/by him and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

The appellant is before this Court and has questioned the correctness and legality of the said judgment.

A. THE PROSECUTION CASE :

2. During the course of trial, the prosecution has unfolded its case which is narrated hereunder :

Deepak Walvi (PW 12) on 11.11.2011 was duty officer at Police Station, Dhantoli, Nagpur. On the said day at about 06.45 pm, one person holding axe in his hand which was smeared with blood, came to Police Station. Deepak Walvi made enquiries with him. He disclosed his name as Omprakash Gayaram Nirmalkar (appellant). He was taken into custody by Deepak Walvi and handed over his custody to WPC Manjusha who was discharging guard duty. Deepak Walvi directed Head Constable Ayyub to take necessary station diary entry and accordingly, the same was taken as per the dictation of Deepak Walvi.

Thereafter Deepak Walvi (PW 12) rushed to the spot of incident. There, he made enquiries. On the spot of incident, Chandrika Mohan Nishad (PW 1) narrated the incident to Police Officer Walvi. Accordingly, Deepak Walvi reduced into writing the oral report given by Smt Chandrika. Oral report is available on record at exhibit 19.

3. Thereafter Deepak Walvi on deputing police personnel to guard the spot of incident came back to the Police Station along with Smt Chandrika and recorded crime vide Crime No. 329/11. He also obtained thumb impression of the complainant Chandrika on the printed First Information Report. The said printed FIR is available on record at exhibit 56.

Oral report of Chandrika (PW 1) was reduced into writing by PW 12 Deepak Walvi, as aforesaid, on the spot itself i.e. “Danteshwari Zopadpatti”. The First Information Report shows that when the first-informant Chandrika at about 06.30 pm was proceeding to dispensary and when she reached to the house of one Chaitram Sahu, that time she noticed appellant Omprakash was giving axe blows on the neck of deceased Ramu. That time, she tried to intervene, but in vain. She was abused by appellant. First-informant raised alarm for help. The appellant continued with his assault. After hearing the alarm from Chandrika when people from locality gathered there, appellant fled away from the spot along with the weapon. Assembled persons from the gathering took Ramu to the Orange City Hospital. She specifically stated in her report that she has witnessed the actual assault at the hands of the appellant.

4. Deepak Walvi again visited the spot along with panchas. From the spot, he collected soil – both simple and blood mixed. He also collected blood stains from the wall near the spot of incident. He also prepared rough sketch map of the spot of incident. The panchanama of the scene of the spot was also recorded in presence of panchas. The spot panchanama is at exhibit 32 whereas rough sketch map of the spot is available at exhibit 33. He also called photographer who snapped photos. Subsequently, he returned to the Police Station and seized the axe and also the clothes from the person of the appellant. The said panchanama is at exhibit 27.

5. The appellant was sent for his medical examination under requisition (exhibit 57).

The inquest was done on the dead body in presence of panchas Vide inquest panchanama (exhibit 61). Dead body was sent for postmortem. Dr Jaideo Borkar (PW 9) conducted autopsy over dead body. The postmortem report which is duly proved by him is at exhibit 44. Deepak Walvi also seized clothes of deceased under seizure panchanama (exhibit 28). Under seizure panchanama (exhibit 30), he collected hair,











































































































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top