IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.82/2000

1) Venkatesh Patil,

2) Ramdas @ Ram Patil,

3) Pralhad @ Prabhu Patil,

All presently undergoing sentence

at Central Jail,

Aguda, Bardez, Goa.

..... Appellants.

V/s.

S T A T E

..... Respondents.

Mr. S.G. Dessai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Bras de Sa,

Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. A.P. Lawande, Public Prosecutor for the State/

Respondent.

CORAM : A.S. AGUIAR &

P.V. HARDAS, J.J.

DATE : 5th March, 2002.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Under challenge in this appeal is the Judgment

and Order dated 26.9.2000 passed by the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Margao convicting the accused/appellants

herein for the offence punishable under Section 302, read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to

undergo Imprisonment for Life.

2. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has based

his Judgment and Order of conviction on the evidence of

eye witnesses who have deposed as to the actual incident

- 2 -

as well as circumstantial evidence which, according to

the learned trial Judge, cumulatively beyond reasonable

doubt, point to the guilt of the accused, the appellants

herein. According to the learned trial Judge, the oral

testimony of the eye witnesses, namely Pw.1, Rupesh

Bandekar, a neighbour of the accused and Pw.16, Anand C.

Naik, a worker at the Gymkhana situate near the scene of

offence, is strongly supported by other witnesses as also

by the circumstances, which are as under :

(i) The accused persons are real brothers.

(ii) The accused persons had a motive against

the deceased.

(iii) The scene of offence is between the

compound of the Govt. Gymnasium and the tar

road and there is Sateri Temple close by.

(iv) The accused nos. 1 and 3 used to go to

the same Gymnasium for doing physical

exercise.

(v) Recovery of blood stained knives (MO.4)

and (MO.5) at the instance of accused Nos.2

- 3 -

and 1 respectively u/s 27 of Evidence Act.

(vi) Post Mortem Report (exbt.PW 6/A, Hurt

certificate (exbt.PW 11/B) and inquest

panchanama (exbt.Pw 7/A) proving the several

injuries on deceased caused by sharp edged

weapon (s).

(vii) Cause of death of Guruprasad, as per PW

6.

(viii) Opinions of Doctors viz. PW.6 and PW

11 that such injuries can be caused by knives

MO 4 and MO 5.

(ix) Recovery of two blood stained shirts in

torn pieces, of accused nos. 2 and 3 at the

instance of accused no.3 u/s 27 of Evidence

Act.

(x) Attachment of other clothes of all three

accused, on which human blood was detected,

specially the banyan of accused no.2 (exbt.5)

which contained the blood of group ‘O’ which

is the blood group of deceased, though the

- 4 -

blood group of accused no.2 is ‘B’.

(xi) Taking of shelter by accused nos. 2 and

3 in the house of PW 13, but running away of

accused no.3 from that house after arrival of

police there.

3. The Judgment and Order is impugned by the

appellants/accused on the grounds set out in the memo of

appeal, inter alia, that the findings recorded by the

learned trial Judge are contrary to the evidence on

record and, therefore, perverse and that the learned

trial Judge has erred in relying upon the prosecution

witnesses whose conduct was not normal human conduct and

that their depositions besides being contrary inter-se,

do not inspire confidence and are otherwise not

trustworthy.

4. Before dealing with the objections/

submissions made by learned Advocate on behalf of the

appellants