Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.
Gorakh S/o. Vitthal Tadvi - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 788 Of 2018
Decided On : 08-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Priteshkumar N. Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case.
Headnote:
Conviction - Criminal Procedure - Cr.P.C. - Section 374
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for assaulting and causing the death of the deceased, his wife, with a knife. The prosecution presented evidence of strained relations between the appellant and the deceased, along with eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence supporting the homicidal nature of the death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence, to be credible and reliable. The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the delay in filing the FIR, discrepancies in the recovery process, and the possibility of accidental injury, and upheld the conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, the reliability of medical evidence, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent eyewitness testimonies, supported by medical evidence, to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appellant's challenges to the prosecution's case, finding no merit in the arguments presented.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Waghwase, J.
1. Getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurbar in Sessions Case No.11 of 2017, convict Gorakh Vitthal Tadavi by invoking section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is questioning the legality, maintainability and sustainability of the conviction.
BRIEF CASE OF PROSECUTION IN TRIAL COURT IS AS UNDER
2. Relations between deceased Dwarkabai and appellant Gorakh were strained. Deceased objected drinking habits of Gorakh. According to prosecution, on 01.10.2016 while deceased was working in the field as labour along with informant and others, around 9:00 a.m. appellant came armed with a knife and assaulted Dwarkabai on the waist part. On being taken to hospital, she was examined at Akkalkuwa hospital and declared dead. PW1 Shakilabai set law into motion and on the basis of report lodged by her, crime was registered, which was investigated by PW7 API Ganesh Nhayade. Accused was challaned and tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, who, on appreciation of evidence held accused guilty.
Hence the appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant :-
3. Questioning the judgment, learned counsel for appellant would submit that, firstly, FIR by PW1 Shakilabai is a translated version and not original complaint. Secondly, FIR is registered after inordinate delay and even copy to the Magistrate is after two days of the occurrence, and therefore, he expressed possibility of concoction and afterthought report. Another ground of attack is that, here prosecution has not proved the very spot of occurrence firmly and cogently and there are distinct spots as per prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that, ocular account material defers from medical account as according to him witness speak about assault on back, but there is no injury on such part. Further, medical expert, on examination of weapon reported the weapon to be double edged, however nature of injuries does not tallying with the said weapon. He further submitted that, even size of the injury does not tallying with the length and width of the weapon and therefore the weapon which allegedly to be seized cannot be connected to the death of Dwarkabai.
4. According to him, at one and the same time, presence of informant Shakilabai is noted at hospital as well as spot is shown to be pointed by her, according to learned counsel, further renders prosecution version unworthy of credence.
5. Learned counsel took us through the answers given by the prosecution witnesses and would submit that testimonies of these witnesses are rendered doubtful and unworthy of reliance.
6. As regard the recovery is concerned, he submitted that, knife which was allegedly seized had no blood stains. Therefore, the memorandum of disclosure and seizure also cannot be relied. According to him, PW4 Murlidhar pancha to memorandum of discovery deposed about knife after seized being kept in Khaki envelop, whereas other witness speak about knife to be in polythene bag. Therefore, said variances also renders case of prosecution weak.
7. Lastly, it is submitted that, case not being proved beyond reasonable doubt, learned trial court ought not to have accepted the case of prosecution. Rather benefit ought to have been extended. The same not being happened, according to him, the judgment under challenge is required to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
On behalf of State :-
8. In answer to above, learned APP pointed out that there is independent eye witness account. There is recovery at the instance of accused. Medial evidence proved death of Dwarkabai to be homicidal one. Therefore there being overwhelming evidence of sterling quality. It is his submission that, no fault can be found in the appreciation, findings and conclusions. He prays to dismiss the appeal.
ANALYSIS
9. On re-appreciating the prosecution evidence, it is emerging that, in trial court case of prosecution is sought
