JUDGMENT B.H. Marlapalle, J.
1. This appeal arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 1140 of 2000 and by the said order dated 2.1.2003, the appellant accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for 15 days on account of causing the murder of his separated wife Ruksana on 1.7.2000.
2. The deceased was the wife of the accused and from the said marriage they begot four children. However, due to the alleged acts of violence and ill-treatment by the accused, the deceased had started staying away from the accused and joined her mother at her house. The incident occurred on 1.7.2000 at about 1.15p.m. in front of the pan shop and liquor shop of the P.W. No. 2 who had known the deceased as she was working as a maid servant in his house. The deceased had come to the shop of the P.W. No. 2 for purchasing betel-nuts and on collecting the same she was going back and was caught hold by the accused who brought her back to the shop of P.W. No. 2 within about five minutes by holding her hands. He assaulted her with knife and he inflicted more than one assaults, as a result of which the deceased Ruksana fell down on the street and the accused ran away. One school boy gave a message to the mother of the deceased in her house in the nearby locality and consequently, P.W. No. 3 Rehambi -the mother of the deceased and P.W. No. 4 Bilkis Banu- a neighbour of P.W. No. 3 came to the place of scene. Ruksana was taken to the Kapoor Hospital, where she was declared dead. The dead body was sent for post mortem and P.W. No. 11 Dr. Prakash Maruti Shinde, Medical Officer attached to the Kapoor Post Mortem Centre conducted the autopsy on 2.7.2000 between 9 to 10a.m. He signed the post mortem report at Exh.38 collectively and recorded the probable cause of death as "haemorrhage and shock due to perforation of vital part (un natural)". In the mean while, on account of the telephonic information given by the P.W. No. 1 Jafar Ismail Shaikh a Reporter, the police came to the scene of offence. The complaint was filed by P.W. No. 4 Bilkis Banu and came to be registered as F.I.R. Exh.13. P.W. No. 9 Ganpat K. Sawant undertook the investigation and on completion of the same, he submitted the charge sheet. The C.A. reports at Exh.30 and 31 collectively were received by the Investigating Officer in respect of the clothes of the deceased, knife used for assaulting the deceased as well as the clothes of the accused.
3. The prosecution examined in all 11-witnesses and P.W. No. 2 Muniraj Jain came to be examined as the eye witness. P.W. Nos. 3 to 7 are the relatives and neighbours of the deceased who arrived at the scene of offence after the incident had taken place. The spot panchanama Exh.18 was admitted by the defence and P.W. No. 8 Vilas Harishchandra Sawant was the police constable on duty at Kapoor Hospital on 1.7.2000 when the deceased was admitted and accordingly he had made entry in the A.D. Register and sent the deceased to IC Unit. The ADR extract is at Exh.20. It is claimed to be as per the statement given by P.W..W. No. 3-the mother of the deceased and marked as Exh.20, has been admitted by the defence. The accused was taken in custody on 1.7.2000 and the arrest panchanama at Exh.21 was also admitted. In addition to the eye witness P.W. No. 2, the prosecution case is based on dying declarations made to P.W. No. 4 Bilkis Banu and the evidence of expert witness.
4. P.W. No. 11 Dr. Prakash Shinde noticed the following external injuries on the person of the deceased.
1) Abrasion over right side of chest 5 cms below right clavicle 4 cm right to midline size 14 x1 cm verticular oblique reddish in colour.
2) IW over upon abdomen right side 10 cm below xyoprd process 1 cm right to middle, size 4 cm x 1 cm cavity deep, vertically oblique, both angles acute. Reddish in colour.
3) IW over lower abdomen 3 cm below the umbilicus, 2.5 cm. right to middle size 3 cm x 1cm x cavity deep, both angles acute, transversely oblique, reddish in colour.
4) IW over left side of back, 3 cms below lower tip of left Scapula, 6 cm left to midline, size 4 cm x2 cm cavity deep, both angles acute, transversely oblique,
5) Abrasion below chin, 2cm below the chin, 1.5 cm right to midline, size 2cm x.2 cm. vertically oblique reddish in colour.
6) IW over ventral aspect of right middle finger, over second (middle) phalanx, size 1 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep, both angles acute, transverse, reddish in colour.
7) IW over ventral aspect of right ring finger, over second (middle ) phalanx, size 1 cm x.2 cm x muscle deep, both angles acute, transverse, reddish in colour. All these injuries are antemortem.
The Doctor found that abdomen and liver was perforated and haemorrhagic, spleen perforated and haemorrhagic, left kidney perforated and haemorrhagic. All the internal injuries were responding to the external injuries and the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to perforation of vital organs (unnatural). The Doctor further confirmed that all the injuries were due to assault and the incised wounds were caused by sharp edged knife and abrasion could be caused by assault by fist blows. As per the Doctor, the lady might be dead within 18 hours from the time of post mortem. He agreed that in the post mortem report the lady was shown of Hindu religion but it was a mistake and she was a muslim. He denied to have performed post mortem on the Hindu lady aged about 30 years. He admitted the suggestion that the injuries could be caused by scissor and could not say approximate length of the weapon, for causing injury to kidney which could be possible if hit on posterior and anterior aspect of the abdomen. He further stated that the patient in such injuries could be unconscious for about 10 minutes and may die thereafter. In case of such injuries there would be professed bleeding.
5. On the basis of the medical evidence, the Trial court recorded the findings and in our opinion rightly that Ruksana died a homicidal death on account of the assaults and she had sustained the fatal injuries by sharp edged weapon like knife.
6. P.W. No. 2 Muniraj Jain stated before the court that deceased Ruksana-the wife of the accused was working in his house as a maid servant and around the time of the incident she was staying with her mother. She used to tell him that her husband i.e. accused was always quarrelling with him. On 1.7.2000 at about 1.15p.m. when he was in his shop, the deceased had come to him for collecting Supari (betel-nut) and she want away after taking the same. After about five minutes she was brought back by the accused by holding her hands to his shop. At that point of time, the accused assaulted her by knife and Ruksana fell down in the lane in front of the shop and the accused ran away. Ruksana shouted and somebody went to the police station. Ruksanas sister and other family members came to the spot when she was unconscious and these persons took her to the hospital. He stated that he knew the accused and he had seen him while assaulting Ruksana by knife. He admitted that after seeing the incident he was simply sitting in his shop and many persons had gathered at the spot. He also admitted that his statement was recorded by the police. In his cross examination, he admitted that the police had told him that he was required to state before the court what had happened in front of his shop on the date of the incident. He also admitted that his statement recorded by the police was read over to him outside the court. He further stated that the house of Ruksana was 10 minutes away from his house and he knew that Ruksana and her husband were staying separately for about 3 years prior to the date of the incident and the accused was not staying in his area. He denied the suggestion that he was keeping knife in his shop to cut the betel leaf. He also admitted that he did not recollect when Bashir brought Ruksana in front of his shop and what he stated to her. He also admitted that after coming in front of his shop Ruksana and Bashir proceeded further at some distance from his shop. He also stated that when the incident had taken place, no one was there and he had seen it. His main testimony that he had seen the accused assaulting the deceased with knife and the deceased tried to run away so as to escape from the assault could not be weakened in his cross examination. The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that P.W. No. 2 was unreliable as his behaviour of keeping mum for more than ten minutes after the incident was unnatural. We do not found any relevance in the aforesaid argument.
7. P.W. No. 3 Rehambi stated that she got the news of the incident through one boy who came running to her house and when she went to the spot, she found that Ruksana was lying in front of the liquor shop. She alongwith Bilkis Banu (P.W. No. 4) and Ayub P.W. No. 7 and P.W. No. 5 Fatima were with her. When she saw Ruksana, she noticed that Ruksana had injuries on her chest and abdomen and Ruksana told her that she would not survive. Ruksana was thereafter taken to the Kapoor Hospital. She admitted to have told the police that the deceased had left her husbands house because he had tried to set her on fire by pouring kerosene. She also admitted in the cross examination that Ruksana was talking to her and other three persons accompanied to the hospital. She denied the suggestion that when she reached the spot, Ruksana was unconscious and was not speaking. P.W. No. 4 Bilkis Banu is one of the three persons who accompanied P.W. No. 3 to take Ruksana to Kapoor Hospital and she clearly stated before the court that one boy came running at about 1.30p.m. on the date of incident when she was washing clothes in front of her house and asked about the mother in law of the accused. When she asked the boy the reason for such an enquiry he had informed her that the accused had committed murder of his wife and therefore, she started shouting and running towards the spot of incident. When she reached the spot she noticed that Ruksana was lying in front of Pan-bidi shop with cut injuries on her abdomen and chest and her clothes were stained with blood. At that time, she asked Ruksana what had happened and Ruksana told her that she was assaulted by Bashir by a sickle. In her short cross examination, the defence could not bring out anything to weaken the oral dying declaration made to this witness by the deceased. Except to give suggestion that when she reached the spot Ruksana was unconscious and she was not able to speak which was denied by P.W. No. 4. The said oral dying declaration also appears in the complaint filed by her and registered as F.I.R. P.W. No. 6 Rehambi is the daughter of the accused and the deceased who came to know about the incident after the deceased was shifted to Kapoor Hospital.The Chemical Analysers report received by the Investigation Officer i.e. P.W. No. 9 Ganpat Sawant, marked at Exhs.30 and 31 collectively showed that the blood group of the accused and the deceased was detected as Group-"B". In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no explanation furnished by him regarding his open shirt and full pant having stained in blood nor it was his case that he had sustained any injuries and therefore, there were blood stains on his shirt and pant. The shirt-Acticle-5 was found to be stained with blood of Group "B" and the same was found on the clothes seized from the body of the deceased i.e. Kudta, Salvar and Odhani. These articles were identified by P.W. No. 9-P.S.I. Ganpat Krishna Sawant and as per his evidence the entry of these articles alongwith the kniife was taken in the Muddemal register and the Station diary. This witness had produced the extract of Muddemal register at Exh.25 and according to him, the clothes of the accused were also seized under panchanama and during his personal search, the accused himself produced the knife concealed in his pant and the same was stained with blood (Article-4). This fact was also confirmed by the evidence of P.W. No. 14-Ayub Khan, who deposed that in his presence the accused Bashir tookk out the knife from his pant which he had concealed and the same was stained with blood. The said knife was seized by the police. He identified the knife as well as the clothes (Articles 4 and 5). The P.W. No. 9-Investigating Officer Mr. Ganpat Krishana Sawant admitted that the forwarding letter was sent to Chemical Analyser alongwith the entire muddemal. It also came in the evidence of the Investigating Officer as well as the panch witnesses that in the pocket of lower portion of the pant knife was concealed, where, there were blood stains of the blood Group "B" which was that of the deceased. At the same time, there was no injury on the person of the accused so as to cause any blood stains on his clothes.
8. The evidence thus, placed before the Trial Court by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who inflicted multiple injuries by the knife on the deceased on 1.7.2000 in front of pan-bidi shop and the liquor shop of P.W. No. 2- Muniraj Jain and thereafter, ran away . His complicity in the offence has been fully established and therefore, the challenge to the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai on 2.1.2003 in Sessions Case No. 1140 of 2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code fails and the said order deserves to be confirmed by us.
9. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 140 of 2000 is hereby confirmed.