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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.A. SANAP, NITIN JAMDAR, JJ.
Francis @ Kau Pattrick Manvell - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Appeal No.324, 725 of 2017 With Interim Application No.371, 1933 of 2021
Decided on : 24-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Aniket Vagal, Mr. Raju D. Suryawanshi
For the Respondent: Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, Adv

Point of Law: Criminal Law - Offence of Murder - Conviction Set aside - Absence of medical evidence to prove that he had sustained serious incised wounds, that evidence would become doubtful on point of role attributed to accused persons - The Evidence of injured eye witnesses is found to be full of omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149, 302, 307 r/w 149 - Assault - Rioting, armed with deadly weapons - Murder - Corroborative evidence - Appeal against conviction - Whether omissions, contractions and inconsistencies brought on record would cut at very route of evidence of P.W.1 - P.W.1, deceased and P.W.4 is friends was birthday of deceased. He wanted to celebrate the birthday with P.W.1 and P.W.4. Therefore they purchased Vadapav and other eatables and went to Garden they sat in garden - When they were about to eat food, accused persons 6 came there with sword, chopper, fighter, sickle and rod - Accused questioned deceased, as to why he has been frequently quarreling with them and why he has filed complaint against them thereafter told deceased that they will kill him and inflicted blows with sword on head of deceased.

Finding of the Court :

The subject to minor permissible variations. Some latitude for minor variations deserves to be granted inasmuch as it would be impossible even for an eye witness to provide stereotype accounts of incident recorded in report - Court opinion, evidence of medical officer, who conducted postmortem over dead body of deceased, would be relevant. P.W.9 Dr. conducted postmortem of dead body. Postmortem report. In his substantive evidence, P.W.9 has deposed about injuries found on dead body - Perusal of his evidence in entirety would show that possibility of these injuries being accidental has been totally ruled out. The other witnesses have deposed that deceased as well as P.W.1 and P.W.4 sustained injuries in assault made on them with deadly weapon. In our opinion, this evidence would be sufficient to record finding that deceased died a homicidal death. Court opinion, this evidence fall short to rope in accused being assailants - Absence of medical evidence to prove that he had sustained serious incised wounds, in our opinion, his evidence would become doubtful on point of role attributed to accused persons. It is, however, pertinent to mention that P.W.4 has also not stated name of Shashikant Barve being one of assailants. This conduct of P.W.4 is inconsistent with case of the prosecution. Court opinion evidence of P.W.4 is not sufficient to establish involvement of Appellants in the crime.

Result: Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

G.A. Sanap, J.

These two appeals arise out of a judgment dated 21 July 2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions Case No.90 of 2013. The Appellant in Appeal No.324 of 2017 was arrayed as Accused No.6 and the Appellant in Appeal No.725 of 2017 was arrayed as Accused No.2. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 307. Learned Sessions Judge awarded the sentence of one year to three months for the remaining offences. They were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-and Rs.500/-for the offences. In these appeals, this order of conviction and sentence is challenged by the Appellants.

The facts leading to filing of appeals are as follows :

2. In the crime, there were in all six accused. Accused Nos.3 and 4 being juveniles were separately charge-sheeted and their case was sent to Justice, Juvenile Board/Court. The remaining four accused, which included the Appellants, faced trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge. Accused No.1 David died during the pendency of the trial and, therefore, case against him stood abated. Accused No.5 Shashikant Barve was acquitted.

3. The incident in question occurred on 25 August 2012, about 4 p.m. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of P.W. 1 at Igatpuri Police Station. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1, deceased Shailesh and P.W.4-Shahid are friends. 25 August 2012 was the birthday of deceased Shailesh. He wanted to celebrate the birthday with P.W.1 and P.W.4. Therefore, at about 03.30 p.m., they purchased Vadapav and other eatables and went to Municipal Garden, Igatpuri. They sat in the garden. When they were about to eat food at about 04.00 p.m., Accused Nos.1 to 6 came there with sword, chopper, fighter, sickle and rod. The accused David questioned deceased Shailesh, as to why he has been frequently quarreling with them. The accused David questioned Shailesh, as to why he has filed a complaint against them at Igatpuri Police Station. The accused David thereafter told deceased Shailesh that they will kill him. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused David and Shashikant Barve inflicted blows with sword on the head of Shailesh. The accused Kau alias Francis (Appellant in Appeal No.725 of 2017) assaulted deceased Shailesh with chopper and accused Munna with fighter on his head. P.W. 1 and P.W.4 made attempt to rescue Shailesh from these accused. The accused David, thereafter, inflicted a sword blow on the left knee of the informant-P.W.1. The accused Munna @ Ayub Hasan Shaikh (Appellant in Appeal No.324 of 2017) inflicted blows with sickle on his chest and stomach. The accused Kau alias Francis inflicted a blow on his right hand with sickle. The accused Shashikant, David and Kau inflicted blows with sword and chopper on person of Mahesh Bandi-P.W.1. The informant P.W.1, P.W.4 Shahid and deceased Shailesh sustained injuries. They made hue and cry. The people of the locality gathered on the spot. The accused fled from the spot. Thereafter, people took them to Igatpuri Rural Hospital. Considering their serious condition, they were shifted to Wockhardt Hospital, Nasik. Shailesh succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital at Nasik.

4. They were taken to Wockhardt Hospital at Nasik. The medical officer treated P.W.1-informant and P.W.4. The medical officer declared Shailesh dead. The information of the crime was conveyed to Bhadrakali Police Station, Nasik. P.W. 12-API attached to Igatpuri Police Station visited Wockhardt Hospital at Nasik. He recorded the statement of P.W. 1. On the basis of the facts stated by P.W.1, he registered the crime bearing No.70 of 2012 against the six accused pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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