Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. GADKARI, MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
Shankar Shrirang Gulik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 955 of 2015
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nasreen Ayubi.
For the Respondent: H.J. Dedhia.
The reliability of a child witness's testimony and the need for substantial corroboration before acting upon it.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Cr.P.C. - [ILLEGALITY OF JUDGMENT] - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., Section 302 of IPC] - The court discussed the legality of the judgment and order convicting the appellant under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized the ocular evidence of a child witness, the medical evidence, and the recovery evidence, and confirmed the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case was based on the ocular evidence of a 12-year-old child witness, who witnessed the appellant inflicting a blow with a scythe on the victim's face, resulting in her death. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond all reasonable doubts based on the reliable and corroborated evidence of the child witness, supported by medical and recovery evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the child witness's testimony, the corroboration of evidence, and the intention of the appellant to cause the victim's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to accept the testimony of a child witness with caution and substantial corroboration, and applied settled legal principles to assess the evidence in the present case.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. This Appeal questions legality of Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras, District Solapur (for short “Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2013 convicting Appellant (Original Accused) under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2. Prosecution’s case is based on ocular evidence of a child witness, aged 12 years which has been accepted by the Trial Court.
Prosecution case relates to an incident which took place on 05.07.2012 resulting in the death of one Chhaya Shinde at the hands of Appellant.
3. Facts of the prosecution case which emerge from the record are as under:
3.1. Deceased Chhaya and Ankush Shinde had four children. Chhaya was residing in village Natepute, Taluka Malshiras alongwith her two minor children, son Anil and daughter Renuka - 12 years whereas Ankush Shinde was residing in Mumbai alongwith their two elder children. Chhaya was working as sugarcane cutting labour. Appellant- Shankar Shrirang Gulik resident of a nearby village, Dahigaon in Taluka Malshiras also worked as sugarcane cutting labour alongwith Chhaya. According to prosecution, there were illicit relations between Chhaya and Appellant for more than one year prior to the date of incident. Appellant persisted with Chhaya to come and reside with him at Dahigaon, whereas Chhaya was reluctant to go with him, hence there were frequent quarrels between the two. At times Appellant used to stay in Chhaya's house during night.
3.2. On 04.07.2012, i.e. one day prior to the incident, Appellant once again persisted with Chhaya in the house of PW-5 Dattamaie Kachare to consider moving with him at Dahigaon. There was an exchange of words between the two, however Appellant assured Chhaya that henceforth he would not insist about the said issue. Thereafter both returned back to Chhaya's house in the evening.
3.3. On 05.07.2012, Anil and Renuka were awakened due to a quarrel between Chhaya and Appellant at about 05:30 a.m. in the morning. Both of them saw Appellant inflicting a blow with the scythe (sickle) on Chhaya's face. Chhaya sustained a grievous injury on her chin and fell down in a pool of blood. Appellant threw away the scythe in the house and ran away. Anil rushed to the police station and informed the police. Chhaya was taken to the Rural Hospital at Natepute, however considering the seriousness of her injury, she was referred to Civil Hospital, Solapur. Chhaya succumbed to her injury during treatment on 11.07.2012.
3.4. Police authorities informed Chhaya's brothers about the incident on 05.07.2012. One of her brother, PW-2 Baba Rane lodged complaint against Appellant alleging attempt to murder Chhaya. Crime was registered as C.R. No. 79 of 2012 in Natepute Police Station against Appellant, initially for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and subsequently the provision of Section 302 IPC was added.
3.5. PW-11 Namdeo Shinde carried out the investigation of crime. Spot panchanama was carried out vide Exh.23 and seizure panchanama vide Exh.25 in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4. One blood stained scythe (sickle), one blood stained blouse, one blood stained plastic gunny bag and soil mixed with blood were seized from the spot of incident. Appellant was arrested and as per memorandum and seizure panchanama clothes of Appellant namely shirt, pant, underwear and baniyan were seized (Article “A-1 to A-4”). Investigating Officer (“IO”) obtained injury certificate of Chhaya from Rural Hospital, Natepute where she was initially treated immediately after incident. IO received all relevant documents from the Civil Hospital, Solapur inter-alia, postmortem report (Exh-49), advance date certificate, and inque
