Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Shri Vasant – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.348 OF 2014
Decided On : 2.03.2016.
Advocate Appeared:
Shri G.S. Lahoti, Counsel for the Appellant (appointed).
Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State.
Important Point – Evidence of a child witness need not be viewed with tinted glasses.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 324 – Murder and hurt – Conviction – Evidence of prosecution witness need not be rejected in toto merely because prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him – Merely because such witness is cross examined, or as is declared hostile, evidence of such witness is not washed off the record altogether – Same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny – Evidence of a child witness need not be viewed with tinted glasses only because he is a child witness – While evaluating evidence of such witness, Court should be on guard and should seek corroboration by way of prudence – If testimony of such child witness inspires confidence, it can safely be accepted – Circumstances as appearing in prosecution case, clearly complete chain of evidence and it is so completed, that it shows not only finger of guilt towards appellant but it also excludes innocence of appellant – Appeal dismissed.
Result – Criminal Appeal dismissed.
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated 17.1.2013 in Sessions Trial No.199 of 2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge12, Nagpur.
By the impugned judgment, appellant Vasant Bhalavi is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count it is directed that he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :
From the night hours of 1.2.2012 to 10:00 hours of 2.2.2012, at police station Sonegaon, Shri Vishwas Subhash Jadhav (PW 9), Police Sub Inspector, was a night officer. A telephonic message was received in the police station from Shyamsingh Inwati (PW 1) that dead body of a woman is lying in the tin shed of Yathartha Apartment. Accordingly, station diary entry was taken about the said message. Then Police Sub Inspector Shri Jadhav along with police staff reached to the spot. It was a tin shed of 12 x 12. The dead body of a lady was lying on the ground in the said shed. Police Sub Inspector Shri Jadhav noticed injury on her throat. He noticed an axe behind the television. The said axe was smeared with blood. He also noticed that the dead body was lying on a quilt and plastic sheet. He called punch witnesses for drawing spot panchnama. Accordingly, in their presence, spot panchnama was drawn. He also seized the axe and the quilt. Also, he seized simple soil and blood mixed soil. He also noticed blood stained pair of chappal. It was also seized. All the seized articles were properly sealed by him and a detailed panchnama, in that behalf, is drawn as spot/seizure panchnama. The said is at Exh.20 on record.
3. Police Sub Inspector Shri Jadhav gathered the identity of the lady as Khemwati. The deceased is the wife of the appellant. He also noticed the presence of Khushal (PW 2), the son of the appellant, who was also injured. He sent the dead body for postmortem.
Thereafter, he came to the police station along with Shyamsingh Inwati (PW 1) and recorded his oral report. The oral report is at Exh.9. On the basis of said report, a crime was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.16 of 2012.
Police Sub Inspector Shri Jadhav also referred Shyamsingh Inwati (PW 1) and Khushal (PW 2) for their medical examination under requisition Exh.30.
The inquest panchnama was drawn at mortuary. The said is at Exh.17. He, thereafter, handed over the investigation to senior police inspector Shri Arun Rautwar (PW 10).
4. After being entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.16 of 2012, senior police inspector Arun Rautwar (PW 10) arrested the appellant under arrest memo Exh.36. He noticed blood stained clothes on his person and also found that the chappal, which he was wearing, was also having blood stains. Those were seized under seizure panchnama Exh.61. He also seized clothes of the deceased vide seizure memo Exh.41. He also collected injury certificate of Khushal (PW 2), the injured and, thereafter, he added an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, also. He also received postmortem report Exh.63. The weapon was also sent to the medical officer for examination under Exh.54. The requisition and the query report were received by him and the same are at Exh.55. The seized articles were sent to the chemical analyzer under requisition Exh.72. After completion of other investigation, final report was filed in the Court of law against the appellant.
5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge12, Nagpur framed charge below Exh.4
