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

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S. P. Kurdukar and A. D. Tated, JJ.
Dasu alias Dadasaheb Sitaram Chavan and another - Appellants
versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
AND
Bhagwan Shankar Desai - Appellant
versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 376 of 1983 and 98 of 1983
Decided on 8.3.1985

Advocates:
Mr. A. H. Desai, Advocate - For the Appellants (in Crl. A. No. 316/83).
Mr. P. K. Nair, Advocate - For the Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 98/83).
Mt. N.M. Kachare (P.P.) - For the Respondent/State (in both Crl. A.).
Dasu alias Dadasaheb Sitaram

IMPORTANT POINT
It is well settled that before using any prior statement of a witness to contradict him, attention of the witness should be drawn to the relevant portion and he should be given an opportunity of explaining any apparent discrepancy. This is more so in the case of contradiction by omission.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154 - F.I.R. - Neither on the Form, nor written by S.H.O. himself – Effect -F.I.R. is valid. (paras 9 and 10)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 - Accused convicted and sentenced - Appeal by the convicts - Re-appraisal of the evidence on record - Premediated assault - Fatal injuries on vital organs - Deceased mercilessly beaten to death – Effect -Appellants rightly convicted. (Para 28)

       

JUDGMENT

A.D. Tated, J. - These two criminal appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 17th February, 1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 141 of 1982 convicting the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 1983 (accused Nos. 1 and 2) of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for. life, and convicting the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1983 (accused No. 3) of the offence under section 325 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/., or, in default, to suffer further R.I. for two months.

2. The prosecution case is that the three appellants-accused as well as deceased Wilson resided in a zopadpatti at Kranti Nagar, Kurla, Bombay. On 15th December, 1981 while the complainant Saiba Baly Damre (P.W. 2), deceased Wilson and one Chandya were near Wadia Estate Naka, a Police Officer at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2 caught hold of Chandya and took him to the Kurla Police Station. The complainant Sajba and deceased Wilson with the help of one Patil, who was the head of the branch of Shiv Sena in that locality, tried to get Chandya released, but they did not succeed. They also contacted Sunder Peter Karkada (P.W. 4) known as uncle. Sunder also tried to help them to get Chandya released from the police, but he did not succeed. Thereafter they went to Corporate Madhukanta and requested him to use his good offices for releasing Chandya. Madhukanta declined to accompany them to the Police Station, but he contacted the Police Station on telephone. . He also did not succeed in getting Chandya released. Thereafter Sunder went to his residence. Saiba and deceased Wilson were proceeding to their homes. Saiba was walking ahead and Wilson was following him. When they were at a short distance from the hut of Wilson, Saiba heard the sound of attack on Wilson Who was following him at a distance of about two paces. On hearing the sound Saiba looked behind and found that Wilson was being assaulted by all the three accused. He noticed that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were armed with iron bars and the accused No.3 had a bamboo stick and all of them were giving blows with those weapons to Willson. He saw the attack by the accused on deceased Wilson in the moonlight. At that time it was about 2.15 a.m. Saiba, feeling that he may also be assaulted, ran away and went to the house of Jakina Francis Fernandes (P.W. 3), the aunt of deceased Wilson. Wilson resided with Jakina. On knowing from Saiba that Wilson was being assaulted by the three accused, Jakina and her nephew George along with the complainant Saiba rushed to the place of assault. There they found that Wilson was lying dead in a: pool of blood with several injuries on his person and the culprits had already left the place. Saiba, George and Jakina in a taxi took the dead body of Wilson to Kurla Police Station. P.S.I. Ramesh Uttam Jadhav (P.W. 10), who was at the Police Station, asked Sion to get down the taxi and asked the 'remaining persons to proceed to Sion Hospital. Accordingly, Wilson was taken to the hospital and there he was declared dea4 by the doctor on duty. P.S.I. Jadhav informed P.I. Sudhakar Chandrakant Bharambe (P.W. 11), who was also at the Police Station, about this incident. P.I. Bharambe recorded the report of Saiba and treated it as F.I.R. It is at Ex. 11.

3. P.I. Bharambe (P.W. 11) and P.S.I. Jadhav (P.W. 10) along with their staff went to the Sion Hospital. P.S.I. Jadhav held inquest on the dead body and prepared the panchnama Ex. 23. At the time of the inquest he seized the clothes (Arts. 3, 4, 5 and 6) stained with blood from the person of the deceased. Thereafter P.S.I. Jadhav and P.I. Bharambe along with their staff returned to the Police Station. Aunt Jakina (P.W. 3) and her nephew George also followed them to the Police Station. P.S.I. Jadhav left in search

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