IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
P.N. DESHMUKH, PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
Kishor Shamrao Bhoyar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2016
Decided On : 23-07-2019
Bombay Police Act - Section 135 - Arms Act - Section 4 - Grievous injuries - Order of conviction - This appeal is preferred against Judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial of by which appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year - Appellant is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 4 r/w- 25 of Arms Act and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act - In brief it is case of prosecution that on day of incident which has occurred on Complainant sister of deceased was in her house along with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law when sister namely of landlord of deceased namely by coming to their house informed that quarrel was going on between accused and deceased at adjoining place - Before Complainant could start to proceed to place of quarrel deceased along with and came to house of Complainant - They were followed by accused who raised quarrel with deceased which was intervened as well as sister-in-law of Complainant - Appellant dragged deceased in front of house of Complainant and gave blows by knife on his abdomen and chest due to which he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to hospital where he was declared dead before admission – Held, In that view of matter merely because blood of group AB which is blood group of deceased was found on clothes of appellant that by itself is too short to connect appellant with present crime- More particularly when in spite of seizure of his clothes on his arrest were forwarded for its analysis to C-A- and there is no link evidence brought on record with reference to safe custody of these articles nor there is reference to sealing of same at time of its seizure - Above aspect thus leaves no room to doubt about tampering of clothes of appellant more particularly in absence of any satisfactory explanation on record to dislodge above suspicion Apex Court observed that if really were at place of incident as stated by prosecution then their clothes would have been blood-stained - Failure on part of Investigating agency to recover any such blood stained clothes from creates serious doubt as to presence of these witnesses at time of incident - Criminal Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :L
P.N. Deshmukh, J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2014 on 21st July, 2016 by which the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 4 r/w. 25 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that, on the day of incident which has occurred on 5.4.2014, at 9.30 p.m., PW-2 Radhika Arun Kshirsagar, Complainant, sister of deceased, was in her house along with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law when sister namely Dipali Bobhate of landlord of deceased Amol namely Sudhakar Bobhate, by coming to their house, informed that quarrel was going on between the accused and deceased at the adjoining place. Before Complainant Radhika could start to proceed to the place of quarrel, deceased Amol along with PW-4 Guruprasad Maraskolhe and PW-5 Lokesh Nannaware came to the house of Complainant. They were followed by accused, who raised quarrel with deceased which was intervened by PW-2 Radhika, PW-4 Guruprasad, PW-5 Lokesh as well as sister-in-law of Complainant. The appellant dragged the deceased in front of house of Complainant and gave blows by knife on his abdomen and chest due to which he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to hospital where he was declared dead before admission.
3. In the midnight on 6.4.2014, PW-2 Radhika lodged report (Exh. 21) which was recorded by PW-9 Mahendrasingh Thakur, P.S.I. and on the basis of same, offence was registered vide Crime No. 127 of 2014 at Exh. 22. Further investigation was carried out by PW-10 Yogesh Ingle, P.S.I. who visited Radhakrishna hospital at Wardhaman Nagar where he learnt of death of deceased Amol. He, therefore, arranged for drawing of Inquest panchanama. It was drawn by PW-11 Arvind Ghodke, A.P.I. The dead body was forwarded for autopsy by PW-10 Yogesh, who visited the spot situated behind Kohinoor Lawns which was shown by PW-2 Radhika, who also informed of assault by appellant on deceased. He prepared Spot Panchanama vide Exh. 18. On 6.4.2014, PW-12 Ghansham Sonawane, P.S.I. effected arrest of accused (vide Exh. 44). On 7.4.2014, Memorandum Statement of appellant is recorded by PW-10 Yogesh Ingle, P.S.I. vide Exh. 36 and in pursuance to same, seizure of one knife was effected at the instance of appellant, which was produced by him from one dumping yard in Suraj Nagar near his house, which came to be seized under Seizure Panchanama (Exh. 37).
4. Clothes of deceased, as produced by P.C. Ajay, are seized under Seizure Panchanama (Exh. 24). During investigation, the Investigating Officer made query with the Medical Officer vide communication (Exh. 41) and by referring knife seized at the instance of appellant, sought medical opinion as per Exh. 42. After recording statements of witnesses, muddemal property came to be forwarded for its analysis to Chemical Analyser vide Requisition memo (Exh. 51). On receipt of C.A. reports (Exh. 56 to Exh. 58) and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Nagpur.
5. In due course of time, the case came to be committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge. Charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 r/w 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which he denied and claimed to be tried. To establish charge levelled against the appellant, prosecution in all examined twelve witnesses and had commenced its evidence by examining PW-1 Ramesh Shinde, spot panch who has proved Spot Panchanama at Exh. 18, PW-2 Radhika Kshirsagar, sister of deceased and eye witness/compl
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.