Ashok Hanumanta Kajari vs The State Of Maharashtra
2015 Latest Caselaw 258 Bom

                                                1
                                                                            Apeal.95-2009.sxw

Dond
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                   
                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2009




                                                           
       ASHOK HANUMANTA KAJERI
       Age: 21 years,
       Residing at : Kurla Garden,




                                                          
       Near Kurla Police Chowky
       Near Datta Auto Center, Kurla (West),
       Mumbai.
       (Presently lodged in Nashik Central Prison               ..Appellant
                                                                (Accused)




                                                      
                  Vs.

       THE STATE (at the instance of
       Dharavi Police Station)
                                     
       (C.R. No.34/07) (C.C.No.518/PW/2007)                     ..Respondent
                                    
                                                ----

       Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar appointed Advocate for the Appellant.
             

       Ms. Rajshree Gadhvi, APP for Respondent-State.
                                     -----
          



                                           CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                                  A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

Date: 1st September 2015.

Oral Judgment (Per Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.):

1 The appellant original accused has preferred this

appeal against the judgment and order dated 11 th November

2008 passed by the learned 5 th Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions

Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in S.C. No.487 of 2007. By the said

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and

sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of

Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine R.I. for two years.

2 The prosecution case can briefly be stated as under:

(i) Deceased Hanumanta was the father of the appellant.

Hanumanta had two wives, the first wife was Samadhan. The

the appellant was the son of Samadhan. The second wife of the

deceased was PW-2 Laxmi. Samadhan along with appellant left

the house of her husband Hanumanta when the appellant was

about one year old. Thereafter Samadhan did not come back.

However, once in a while the appellant used to meet

Hanumanta. The appellant had a grudge against his father as

according to him his father had abandoned him when he was

one year old.

(ii) The incident took place on 13.2.2007. On that day at

about 6.35 p.m. the appellant assaulted his father Hanumanta

with a knife in front of O.N.G.C. building and Hello

Communication Center. This was situated at Mukund Nagar,

Dharavi, Mumbai. PW-1 ASI Mohite and PW-6 Police Constable

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

Nangare were on patrolling duty in mobile van. When they

reached near O.N.G.C. building, they saw that a crowd of people

had gathered in front of Hello Communication Center. They went

there in their mobile van. They got down from the said mobile

van. They saw the appellant was giving blows with knife on

Hanumanta who was lying on the road. ASI Mohite caught hold

of the right hand of the appellant in which hand the appellant

was holding a knife. ASI Mohite snatched the knife from the right

hand of the appellant. They put the appellant in the mobile van.

They took injured person in the mobile van to the hospital. In the

hospital the injured person i.e. Hanumanta was declared dead.

ASI Mohite then lodged FIR (Exhibit 10). Thereafter, investigation

commenced. The appellant was arrested. The blood stained

clothes on the person of appellant were seized under

panchanama. Knife which was found in the hand of the appellant

was also seized under panchanama. The dead body of

Hanumanta was sent for postmortem.

(iii) PW-10 Dr. Dere conducted postmortem on the dead

body of Hunumanta. In all he found 12 injuries, out of them 11

injuries were stab wounds and one was incised wound. Out of

the stab wounds five stab wounds were on the chest and one

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

stab wound was on the stomach due to which intestines had

came out. The rest of the injuries were on the other parts of the

body like inter coastal space, clavicle region, lumber region etc.

After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be

filed.

3 Charge came to be framed against the appellant under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(i) (a)

read with Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. The appellant

pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

The defence of the appellant is of total denial and false

implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this

case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the

appellant as stated in para-1 above. Hence, this appeal.

4 We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant

and the learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered

their submissions, facts and circumstances of the case,

judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the

evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, for

the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

appellant assaulted his father Hanumanta with a knife and

caused his death.

5 Conviction is mainly based on the evidence of three

eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 ASI Mohite, PW-6 Police Constable

Nangare and PW-7 Raghu Shetty. PW-1 ASI Mohite has stated

that on 13.2.2007, he was on patrolling duty in mobile van.

Police Constable Nangare (PW-6) was driving the said mobile

van. When they reached in front of O.N.G.C. building they saw

that a crowd had gathered in front of Hello Communication

Center which was situated on the opposite side of the O.N.G.C.

building. They went to the spot in their mobile van. They got

down from the mobile van. They saw one person (appellant) was

giving blows with knife on the other person who was lying on the

road. PW-1 ASI Mohite has identified the appellant as the very

same person who was assaulting the other person with knife.

ASI Mohite went behind the appellant and caught his right hand

in which hand the appellant was holding a knife. ASI Mohite

snatched the knife from the right hand of the appellant. They

put Hanumanta in the mobile van. ASI Mohite then took the

appellant to the police station and handed over the appellant

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

and the knife to the duty officer of Dharavi police station. In the

meantime Hanumanta was taken to the hospital where

Hanumanta was declared dead. ASI Mohite then lodged FIR.

6 PW-6 Police Constable Nangare, the second eye-

witness has stated that on 13.2.2007, he was on duty at Dharavi

police station as police constable-cum-driver. On that day he

along with ASI Mohite and Constable Jadhav went for patrolling

duty. When they reached in front of O.N.G.C. building, they saw

that a crowd had gathered in front of Hello Communication

Center which was situated opposite O.N.G.C. building. They went

to the spot in their mobile van. When they got down from the

said mobile van, they saw one person was lying on the footpath

and other person was giving blows with knife on the person who

was lying on the road. Police Constable Nangare has identified

the appellant as the very same person who was giving blows

with knife on the person who was lying on the road. He has

identified the knife, article-5 as very same knife which was in

the hand of the appellant. It may be stated here that PW-1

Mohite has also identified the knife, article-5 as the same knife

which was in the hand of the appellant.

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

7 The last eye-witness is PW-7 Raghu Shetty. He was

working as a Manager in Hotel Raj Palace which was situated

opposite O.N.G.C. building. He has stated that Hello

Communication Center was situated towards right side of their

Hotel. Raghu Shetty has stated that on 13.2.2007 at about 6.30

p.m. a crowd of people had gathered in front of Hello

Communication Center. He went to the spot. He saw the

appellant was saying that the other person was his father and

his father had caused a lot of trouble to him. The appellant

assaulted the other person i.e. his father in the stomach.

Thereafter three policemen came there. They caught hold of the

appellant and put him as well as injured person in the police

van.

Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of

any of these three eye-witnesses which would cause us to

disbelieve their testimony. We find their testimony to be cogent,

convincing, and reliable and hence, we have no hesitation in

relying on the same.

8 In addition to the evidence of these three eye-

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

witnesses, the prosecution is relying on the circumstance of the

seizure of blood stained clothes which was on the person of the

appellant at the time of the incident and his arrest. PW-13

Mohammed Shaikh, panch-witness has deposed on this aspect.

He has stated that on 13.2.2007 he was called at police station.

The appellant was present at the police station. Police seized the

clothes i.e. gray colour T-shirt, and gray colour pant of the

appellant. There were fresh blood stains on the pant on knee

portion. This witness has also deposed about the seizure of

article-5 knife. The said knife and clothes of the appellant was

sent to the C.A. along with clothes of the deceased. All the

clothes of the deceased were found to be stained with blood of

"B" group. Moreover, the CA report (Exhibit-36) shows that the

blood group of deceased was "B". The clothes of the appellant

were found to be stained with blood of "B" group. No

explanation has been furnished by the appellant for the

presence of blood stains of "B" group on his clothes. Thus

finding of blood stains of "B" group which is the group of the

deceased on the clothes of the appellant is a highly

incriminating circumstance.

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

9 It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted

his father Hanumanta with a knife and caused his death. The

appellant was caught red handed with the knife Article 5 in his

hand which was snatched by PW-1 ASI Mohite. This knife was

seized under panchanama. PW-13 panch-witness Mohammed

Shaikh has deposed on this aspect. The knife was sent to

Chemical Analyzer and as per C.A. report Exhibit.60 the knife

was found stained with blood stains of "B' group. This further

corroborates the prosecution case.

10 As stated earlier it is the prosecution case that the

appellant assaulted his father Hanumanta with a knife which led

to the death of Hanumanta. The medical evidence also

corroborates the prosecution case. PW-10 Dr. Dere conducted

postmortem on the dead body of Hanumanta. On external

examination he found in all 12 injuries, out of these 12 injuries,

11 injures were stab wounds and one was an incised wound. Out

of the 11 stab wounds five stab wounds were on chest and one

stab wound was on the stomach due to which the intestines had

came out. The rest of the injuries were on the other parts of the

body like inter coastal space, clavicle region, lumber region etc.

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

On internal examination Dr. Dere found there was puncture over

upper lobe of right side lung and peritoneum was torn. In the

opinion of Dr. Dere the injuries were possible by knife, article-5.

Dr. Dere opined that all the external injuries seen on the dead

body of Hanumanta were sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death.

11 On going through the record, we are of the opinion that

there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt

that the appellant had committed murder of his father

Hanumanta by assaulting him with knife. Thus, we find no merit

in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.

12 We quantify legal fees to be paid by the High Court

Legal Services Committee to Ms. Rohini Dandekar at Rs.5000/-

13 Office to communicate this order to the appellant who

is in jail.

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

Apeal.95-2009.sxw

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment.