Sitaram Govind Pardhi And Sitaram ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2004 Latest Caselaw 277 Bom

JUDGMENT

Palshikar, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed on 31-3-2000 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions case No. 352/98 convicting the accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for life, the appellants have filed this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant.

2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the defence and the learned Prosecutor we have scrutinized the evidence and have reappreciated the evidence on record.

3. The prosecution story as revealed by the reappreciation of the evidence stated briefly is that there was quarrel between the accused and the victim, days prior to the date of incident. In the night of 31-1-1998 around 12 in the mid night, seven persons went to the house of the deceased and assaulted the deceased by pulling him out of the house. When the wife of the deceased tried to save she was also chased and killed. Their daughter Pappi was the eye witness to this. She therefore went to the police, lodged the FIR on the basis of which investigation was taken up, the accused were arrested and prosecuted.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in this case to prove its case. On appreciation of this evidence the learned trial Judge recorded the order of conviction and sentenced them as aforesaid. It is this judgment, which is questioned before us on the ground mentioned in the appeal and also orally canvassed by the ld. A.P.P.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel that the evidence on record is grossly insufficient to award conviction to the accused for murdering two persons. Reliance was placed by the trial Judge on the sole testimony of the sole eye witness who was the daughter of deceased. There is no worthy evidence on the basis of which such conviction can be recorded. He therefore prayed that the judgment of conviction be set aside. This contention was opposed by the learned A.P.P. who pointed out the entrinsic evidence in the evidence of P.w.5, who stated the truth before the court. He duly corroborated the evidence and there is therefore no reason to interfere with the order of conviction.

6. P.w.1 is the police patil who on knowing the assault on the victim, accompanied the daughter P.w.5 to the police station, who then lodged the complaint which was registered as FIR. P.w.2 is the brother of the deceased who deposed about prior quarrel between the accused and the complainant. He therefore establishes the motive and the intention on the part of the accused to assault the deceased.

7. P.w.3 is also a witness to the previous quarrel establishing enimity between them. P.w.4 is the doctor who conducted the post martum and has proved that the death was homicidal. He gives the probable cause of death as haemorrhagic shock due to rupture of left lung. He also conducted the post martum of second victim and also proved that his death was also homicidal. There is no reason why this evidence should be discarded.

8. The prosecution has thus establishes the death of deceased and his wife was homicidal and that they had the motive to commit that crime as will be evident from the evidence of P.ws. 1,2 and 3.

9. P.w.5 is the main witness. She is the daughter of the victims and she gives very good description of the prior quarrel and the subsequent assault. She deposed that in the night of 31-1-1998 she was awaken by her mother saying that her father was being beaten by accused No. 1. This witness along with her mother went to separate the father and saved him from the assult. She then saw her father fell down and the accused No. 1 hit him by a craw bar. The accused on seeing the witness, started running after them. She then states that the accused rushed towards her and her slather. Her mother started running towards the house and this witness then hid behind the mango tree. The accused then came running and kicked the door of the house whereupon the mother started running towards the cattle shed and she heard the mother shouting Pappi run (Pappi dhav) and she saw her mother being beaten by the accused. She saw the accused, No. 1. beating her mother by draw bar. She has very clearly deposed that accused No. 2 was also with the accused No. 1 and held the head . of the father of the victim while the accused No. 1 was beating him with craw bar. She then says that after both the mother and father were so assaulted, accused No. 1 and 2 left the place. She lifted her mother and tried to pour water on her, but in vein. She went to see her father and found him dead. It was then that she went to police patil. At that time the police patil was not in the house and ultimately in the morning she along with the police patil and another relation went to the police station to lodge the FIR. This witness was of 16 years old when the event took place. She has been extensively cross examined by the prosecution. There is nothing in the cross examination which would require the court to disbelieve her evidence. She has described where the injuries were caused and she has corroborated on that point by the evidence of P.w.4 doctor. The injuries are corresponds to the injuries as deposed to by the doctor and therefore there is intrinsic corroborative evidence supporting the fact that it was the accused who killed the victim as described by the eye witness P.w.5.

10. P.w.7 is the investigating officer who has also got examined the blood reports of the accused as also the deceased. Both the deceased had blood croup of 'A'. The blood group of accused No. 1 was 'B' and accused No. 2 was 'O', but the blood stained clothes which were seized disclosses presence of blood group 'A'. It therefore clinches the case of the prosecution that it was accused Nos. 1 and 2 who assaulted and killed the deceased. This aspect has been well considered by the trial Judge and he affirmed the findings as recorded by him. There is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction which was written properly by the trial Judge. In the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed.