Bombay High Court

Kallappa Amogsidha Kolnure & Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 September, 2012

Bench: S.S. Jadhav

                                               1                  206.apeal204.94.sxw




                                                                        
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION




                                                
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 204  OF 1994

     1. Kallappa Amogsidha Kolnure,




                                               
         Age 33 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
         Resident of Burgudagi, 
         Tal. Indi, District- Bijapur.




                                   
     2. Genappa Amogsidha Kolnure,
         Aged 30 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist
                    
         Resident of Kumbhari, Tal. South
         Solapur, District- Solapur.                ...   Appellants. 
                   
                 Versus

     1. The State of Maharashtra.
      


     2. Appasha Malkari Yamade,
         R/o Kumbhari, Tal. South
   



         Solapur, District- Solapur.                ...   Respondents.
                                       ---





     Ms. Sarojini Upadhyay, Advocate appointed for Appellants. 

     Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State.

                                   ---





                               CORAM :  SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J

                               DATE     : SEPTEMBER 28, 2012


     JUDGMENT :

1 The present Appellants herein stand convicted for offence

punishable under Section 307 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and

2 206.apeal204.94.sxw

sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-

i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year. They are also convicted for offence

punishable under Section 37(1) r/w 135 of the Bombay Police Act

and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.

100/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for 15 days in Sessions Case No. 238 of

1992 by III Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur by Judgment and

Order dated 17th March, 1994.

2 Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants herein

have preferred this Appeal.

3 Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this

Appeal are as follows :

On 15/9/1991 Appasha Malkari Yamade (Respondent No. 2

herein) filed a report at Jail-Road Police Station, Solapur alleging

therein that he was arrested and tried for the homicidal death of

Somanna, who happened to be the brother of the present

Appellants. He was acquitted in the said case and therefore, the

present Appellants had a grudge against him. He further alleged

that in the intervening night of 14th and 15th of February, 1991, he

3 206.apeal204.94.sxw

was sleeping on platform abutting the house of one Jagannath B.

Desai. At about mid-night he was assaulted by the present

Appellants and others with deadly weapons like sword, axe and

small knife. He has attributed specific role to his assailants. He

had sustained grievous injuries. Parts of his right finger and the

distal phalanx of middle finger were mutilated. Upon hearing his

cries Desai came out of the house. The assailants had fled from

the spot. He was taken to hospital by Desai and his son Ashok. He

was admitted in Civil Hospital, Solapur. His statement was

recorded by the police as well as Special Executive Magistrate in

the Civil Hospital. The statement recorded by the Special

Executive Magistrate is at Exh. 34. The statement recorded by

police is at Exh. 33. On the basis of the statement recorded by the

police, Crime No. 143 of 1991 was registered against the assailants

for offences punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and

under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. The accused were

arrested on 16th September, 1991. Investigation was completed

and chargesheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court

of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 238 of 1992. The

4 206.apeal204.94.sxw

prosecution examined 9 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the

accused.

4 P.W. 3 Appasha is the injured witness. He is the relative of

the Accused persons as the wife of the Accused No. 3 happens to

be the daughter of his eldest uncle. According to him, he was

acquitted in the murder case of Somanna, brother of Accused

No.1. He has deposed before the Court that on the date of

incident, he had halted at the house of Jagga Desai. At night he

was sleeping on the platform abutted the house of Jagga Desai. At

about mid-night he received a blow over the stomach and with

that shock he woke up. He saw Accused Nos. 1 to 4 standing in

front of him armed with deadly weapons. They assaulted him.

There was a tube light on the pole just next to the platform and

therefore, he could identify the assailants. Upon hearing his hues

and cries Desai came out of the house. He brought police to the

spot and then P.W. 3 was taken to Civil Hospital by rickshaw. His

statement was reduced into writing by the police with the help of

translator, as P.W. 3 was able to speak only Kannada language.

He had admitted the contents of the FIR at Exh. 33.

                                                  5                  206.apeal204.94.sxw




                                                                          
                                                  
     5      It is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness that he 

     was   a   close   relative   of   the   Accused   persons.     The   overt   act

attributed by the P.W. 3 are in fact stated in Exh. 33 and therefore,

cannot be treated as omissions. The only omission, which is

elicited, is about availability of light at the time of incident. In

any case, the said omission would lose its significance because the

assailants were close relatives of the Complainant and could be

easily identified. Hence, implicit reliance can be placed upon the

sterling testimony of P.W. 3. The statement of the complainant,

which is recorded by the Executive Magistrate (Exh. 34), is proved

by the complainant himself. Since the Complainant has survived,

the said statement cannot be said to be a statement under Section

32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The allegations in Exh. 33 and 34

are same and there is no variance between the two statements.

6 P.W. 5 is Jagannath. The complainant has visited his house

on the day of incident. P.W.5 has deposed before the Court that

at about mid night his wife woke up him. When they opened the

door and came out of the house, they saw that the complainant

6 206.apeal204.94.sxw

was crying as Desai Desai. He was in frightened condition and he

had sustained bleeding injuries all over his body. Upon seeing his

condition, P.W. 5 sent his son Ashok to fetch a rickshaw. Ashok

had returned alongwith police and rickshaw and then the

complainant was taken to the Civil Hospital. He has categorically

stated that there is a tube light at a distance of 2 feet from the

platform of his house, where the incident had occurred. The

witness has stood the test of examination.

7 P.W. 7 Dr. Sanjay had examined the complainant on

15/9/1991 at about 1.05 a.m. He has proved injury certificate of

the complainant which is at Exh. 39 and the X-ray photograph

which is at Exh. 42. The injuries are as under :

1) Incised wound over parital region 3" x 1" bone deep;

2) Incised wound over outer part of left ear 1" x 1/2";

3) Incised wound over extending from medial end of right eye through base of nose upto upper part of maxillary process left side size 11" x 1/2" x bone deep;

4) Incised wound over right palm dorsum extending from base of index finger to middle finger and distal phalanx of ring finger. First second met a exposed 8" x 3";

                                                      7                  206.apeal204.94.sxw




                                                                              
            5)      Troumatic   amputation   over   middle   phalanx   of   ring

finger 3" circular bone muscle artries cut through and

through;

6) Troumatic amputation over distal phalanx of middle finger 3" circular bone muscle artery cut;

7) Incised wound over horizontal below left side of neck, size 6 cm. X ½ cm x ½ cm;

8) Incised wound over upper part of the sternum size 8 cm. x ½ cm x ½ cm.

He has deposed before the Court that the injuries No. 1,3, 7 and 8

were on the vital part of the body. He further stated that the

injuries sustained by the complainant were sufficient to meet death

in ordinary course of nature, if not treated immediately. He has

further deposed that the injury Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are such that they

have effect of permanent impairment. The injury No. 3 is

permanent disfiguration of right eye and face. According to him,

P.W. 3 was admitted on 15/9/1991 and was discharged on

15/10/1991. It is elicited in the cross-examination that due to

injury No. 3, the patient may be blind permanently. Such type of

injury can be cured by operation. Due to injury No. 4, the patient

had not lost the strength of whole right hand. Due to injury Nos.

5 and 6, he had not lost whole strength of left hand, but lost

8 206.apeal204.94.sxw

strength of particular part of ring finger and middle finger. P.W. 7

has further admitted before the Court that injury No. 1, 7 and 8

were alone not sufficient to cause death, though they were on the

vital part. Injury No. 3 alone is not sufficient to cause death.

8 P.W. 8 and 9 are investigating officers. They have conducted

the investigation in a fair manner and no fault can be found with

the procedure adopted by them.

9 Upon reading the evidence of P.W. 3 coupled with the

evidence of P.W. 7, it can be held that the P.W. 3 has established

the guilt of the Accused. It cannot be a case of mistaken identity

as the Complainant was well acquainted with the assailants ever

since his childhood. The defence has challenged availability of

light at the time of incident. However, P.W. 5 Jagannath has

specifically stated that a tube light was mounted on a pole at a

distance of 2 feet from the scene of offence. This contention of

P.W. 5 is not seriously challenged in the cross-examination. The

learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the

complainant had not disclosed to P.W. 5 soon-after the incident

9 206.apeal204.94.sxw

that he was assaulted by the present Appellants. Upon perusal of

the injury certificate, it can be inferred that P.W. 3, the

complainant may not have been able to give a narration of facts

soon-after the incident, as he was in frightened condition and he

had sustained several bleeding injuries. However, there is no

inconsistency in the statements of the complainant, which are at

Exh. 33 and 34. Hence, it can be safely inferred that the

prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the

present Appellants were the authors of the injuries sustained by

P.W. 3.

10 The accused were arrested on 16/9/1991 and were

enlarged on bail on 5/10/1991. They were taken into custody on

17/3/1994 and were enlarged on bail by an order dated

24/2/1995. They have approximately undergone a sentence of

about 11 months. It can be said that the assailants have

voluntarily caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapons. The

complainant had sustained grievous injuries and therefore, the

Appellants would be guilty of offence punishable under Section

326 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Since the complainant and the assailants are

10 206.apeal204.94.sxw

relatives and due to passage of time, there is every possibility that

the relations between them must have become normal.

11 In view of the aforementioned reasons, following order is

passed :

(i) The conviction of the Appellants for offence punishable

under Section 307 of I.P.C is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Appellants are held guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C and are

sentenced to period already undergone. However, the fine

imposed on the Appellants is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- each.

(iii) The Appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable

under Section 37(1) r/w Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.

(iv) The Appellants are directed to deposit the remainder of

the fine amount within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt

of notice of this order in the Court of Sessions at Solapur.