Raju @ Mukesh S/o. Punamchand Dangre (Patel) vs State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Malkapur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Bom) 977

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, G.A. SANAP, JJ.
Raju @ Mukesh S/o. Punamchand Dangre (Patel) & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Malkapur - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2016 With Criminal Appeal No. 440 of 2016
Decided On : 01-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri A.K. Bhangde, Shri R.R. Prajapati.
For the Respondent: Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION] 302, 307, 353, 201, 25 - [SUBJECT] IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - [ACT] INDIAN PENAL CODE, ARMS ACT - Conviction of appellants for offences under Sections 302, 307, 353, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 challenged - Prosecution case that deceased PSI Chaugule had latched the door from the outside so that the occupants do not run away and that the appellants Golu and Raju bent the door of the house and came out and fired with the revolver on the police party - Appellants' defence that PSI Chaugule fired himself and committed suicide or due to the enmity, the other police officers taking the advantage of the situation, killed PSI Chaugule by using his service revolver - HELD, dismissing the appeals, that the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the fact of existence of electric light on the spot is found credible - The omission sought to be attributed to the eye-witnesses has not been proved - The weapon i.e. pistol used in this case was not recovered - The custody of the pistol with the appellant Raju has been proved on the basis of the independent evidence of PW-15 Fulsing Bhoi - It is also undisputed on behalf of the appellants that the deceased PSI Chaugule died due to injury sustained by the bullet which was retrieved from his body - The facts recorded in the panchnama crystallized the facts with regard to the actual occurrence of the incident and use of country-made pistol for firing on the police party.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution case was that the deceased PSI Chaugule had latched the door from the outside so that the occupants do not run away and that the appellants Golu and Raju bent the door of the house and came out and fired with the revolver on the police party. The appellants' defence was that PSI Chaugule fired himself and committed suicide or due to the enmity, the other police officers taking the advantage of the situation, killed PSI Chaugule by using his service revolver.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the fact of existence of electric light on the spot is found credible. The omission sought to be attributed to the eye-witnesses has not been proved. The weapon i.e. pistol used in this case was not recovered. The custody of the pistol with the appellant Raju has been proved on the basis of the independent evidence of PW-15 Fulsing Bhoi. It is also undisputed on behalf of the appellants that the deceased PSI Chaugule died due to injury sustained by the bullet which was retrieved from his body. The facts recorded in the panchnama crystallized the facts with regard to the actual occurrence of the incident and use of country-made pistol for firing on the police party.
Issues: Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the fact of existence of electric light on the spot is credible.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses on the fact of existence of electric light on the spot is found credible. The omission sought to be attributed to the eye-witnesses has not been proved. The weapon i.e. pistol used in this case was not recovered. The custody of the pistol with the appellant Raju has been proved on the basis of the independent evidence of PW-15 Fulsing Bhoi. It is also undisputed on behalf of the appellants that the deceased PSI Chaugule died due to injury sustained by the bullet which was retrieved from his body. The facts recorded in the panchnama crystallized the facts with regard to the actual occurrence of the incident and use of country-made pistol for firing on the police party.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. Sanap, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the Judgment in Sessions Trial No.86/2012 and therefore, the same are being disposed of by common Judgment. The appellants have challenged the Judgment and order dated 13/04/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The sentences awarded to them are as follows :-

[i] Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.

[ii] Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.

[iii] Under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.

[iv] Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant Raju was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.

[v] Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, the appellant Raju was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.

2. Dipak @ Golu Ananda Tayade was arrayed as accused No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Golu'). Raju @ Mukesh Punamchand Dangre (Patel) was arrayed as accused No.4 (hereinafter referred to as 'Raju'). The remaining accused namely accused Nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. The State has not preferred appeal against the order of their acquittal.

3. A crime bearing No.5/2011 for the commission of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered at Kholapuri Gate Police Station, Amravati against Golu and others. PW-2 Sanjay Ramrao Deshmukh (P.I.) was conducting the investigation of the said crime. The wanted accused in the said crime Rahul Rajput and Lokesh Thakur were arrested on 14/01/2011 from Burhanpur and brought to Amravati. PW-2 Sanjay Deshmukh received the information that the wanted accused Golu was residing at Malkapur City. PW-2 Sanjay Deshmukh on the basis of this information decided to proceed to Malkapur. On 15/01/2011 at about 4.45 a.m., PI Sanjay Deshmukh, deceased PSI Sanjay Chaugule, NPC Sanjay Patinge, PC Amar Baghel, PC Vijay Gaharwal, HC Bhaurao Kalane along with the arrested accused Rahul Rajput left Amravati for Malkapur in search of absconding accused Golu. The arrested accused Rahul Rajput was with them because he was knowing Golu. Rahul Rajput informed PW-2 Sanjay Deshmukh that Golu might be found at Malkapur or Bhusawal. The investigation team reached Malkapur at 12.00 noon. The location of the appellant Golu was traced out with the help of his sim card. The sim card used by Golu was in the name of Sandip Jaware. The investigation team reached place of Sandip Jaware. The enquiry made with Sandip Jaware led the investigation team to "Comprint Computers", Shop of one Sancheti. They got the information that Golu was residing at Pant Nagar. They took search at Pant Nagar. Their search revealed that the person possessing the said sim card had recharged his sim card at the Grocery Shop of Rajesh Nimbolkar. Rajesh Nimbolkar on being questioned took them to Pant Wada in Pant Nagar, where the accused Raju was earlier residing. The accused Raju was not found there. Rajesh Nimbolkar gave a call to one Fulsing and called him to that place. Fulsing told the police party that accused Ra