Bombay High Court
Nago Rushi Redlawar (Presently In ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 29 February, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.166/2013
Sunil s/o Ramesh Sakharkar,
aged about 37 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Amatha Ward, Padoli (Morwa),
Tq. Dist. Chanddrapur. .....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
The State of Maharashtra through,
Police Station Officer, Ghuggus,
Dist. Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for appellant.
Shri V. A. Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.215/2013
Shehnaj Sheikh Salim Sheikh,
aged about 45 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Tadoli, T Point (Nago Redlawar Dhaba)
Tq. Dist. Chanddrapur. .....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
The State of Maharashtra through,
Police Station Officer, Ghuggus,
Dist. Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. M. Daga, Advocate for appellant.
Shri V. A. Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.406/2013
Nago Rushi Redlawar,
aged about 52 years, Occ. Transport Business,
R/o Bapat Nagar, Chandarpur .....APPELLANT
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:06:35 :::
2 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
...V E R S U S...
The State of Maharashtra through,
Police Station Officer, Ghuggus,
Dist. Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. M. Daga, Advocate for appellant.
Shri V. A. Thakre, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED :-
FEBRUARY 29, 2016
J U D G M E N T (Per : V. M. Deshpande, J.)
1. These three appeals, since arise out of the judgment and
order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur
in Sessions Case No. 158/2011 dated 31.01.2013, they are decided by
this common judgment.
2. By the impugned judgment, these three appellants are
convicted by the learned Judge of the Court below for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and all
of them are directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/- by each of them and in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
Criminal Appeal No.166/2013 is filed by accused no.2-Sunil
Ramesh Sakharkar. Criminal Appeal No.215/2013 is preferred by
3 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
accused no.3-Shehnaj Shaikh Salim Shaikh, whereas Criminal Appeal
No. 406/2013 is filed by accused no.1-Nago Redlawar.
These appellants are convicted for the homicidal deaths of
one Chandu Kamble and his wife Sunita Kamble.
3. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under.
Pitambar Jadhav, Police Sub Inspector who is examined by
the prosecution as its witness No.12 was serving at Ghuggus Police
Station. On 17.08.2011, he was on his duty at outpost Padoli of
Ghuggus Police Station jurisdiction. At 7.30 p.m. on the said date, it
was informed telephonically to him that the accused no.1-Nago
Redlawar has caused injuries to two persons by means of knife. It was
also informed to him that the incident has occurred near Shruti T-
point.
On getting such an information, he along with police
personnel reached to the spot by police jeep. Noticing their presence,
Premshankar Jha (PW2) and Ku. Papita (PW4) came near to him from
the railway track.
Pitambar Jadhav (PW12) noticed that Chandu Kamble and
his wife were laying in the injured condition at about 10 ft. distance
from Shruti T-point dhaba. He immediately put them in the police
jeep along with Premshankar Jha and Papita and proceeded to the
4 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
Government Hospital. Before his departure to the hospital from the
spot, PSI Jadhav gave an intimation to Police Station Officer, Police
Inspector Ajit Lakde (PW11).
On reaching to the hospital, the injured persons were
admitted for medical assistance. Sunita Kamble was declared 'brought
dead'. Though, the medical treatment for about 45 minutes was given
to Chandu Kamble, he too succumbed to his injuries. In the
meanwhile, PI Lakde reached to the hospital.
4. Premshankar Jha (PW2) lodged the oral report. The said is
at Exh.-30 on the record. It was lodged on 17.08.2011 itself. The said
report was reduced into writing as per his say and the crime was
registered against the appellants for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC vide Crime No. 100/2011.
The printed FIR is at Exh.-31.
The FIR discloses that the first informant was running a
Dhaba of accused no.1 Nago Redlawar on rent. Nago Redlawar is
having his house adjacent to the dhaba and in the said house, truck
driver of Nago Redlawar that is the deceased Chandu Kamble was
residing on rent along with his deceased wife Sunita and daughter
Papita and his son.
It is stated in the FIR that on the day of the incident, at
5 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
about 7.30 p.m., accused no.1-Nago came to dhaba from the side of
Padoli and made inquiries about the deceased Chandu. In the
meanwhile, the deceased Chandu also came there on motorcycle. He
parked his motorcycle. Thereafter, the deceased Chadu demanded his
three months salary from Nago Redlawar. That time, accused no.1-
Nago Redlawar replied that he should immediately vacate the room
and thereafter gave a slap to Chandu resulting into his fall on the
ground. When Chandu stood, that time the son in law the accused
no.1 i.e. accused no.2 Sunil Sakharkar, rushed to the spot from Pan
thela and then caught hold of the hands of Chandu. Thereafter,
immediately, Nago Redlawar dealt knife blows on Chandu. Chandu
raised an alarm and cried for help. Due to that, his wife the deceased
Sunita came there. She was followed by accused no.3-Shehnaj and
when Sunita was trying to save Chandu, at that time, Shehnaj caught
hold hairs of Sunita and that time Nago inflicted knife blows on
Sunita. In the meanwhile, the first informant tried to intervene. On
that, Nago Redlawar also tried to make attack on him due to which
Premshankar Jha also received injuries on his hands. At the time of
incident, Papita was also standing on the spot. Accused no.1 and
accused no.2 chased Premshankar Jha. That time, one Sanju Soni who
was also present there, asked to Premshankar to take away Papita and,
therefore, Premshankar along with Papita ran towards the railway
6 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
crossing. From there, Premshankar gave intimation to police on
telephone and on arrival of police to the spot, Premshankar along with
Papita came near them.
5. Ajit Lakde (PW11) took the investigation. He directed
Pitambar Jadhav (PW12) to do the inquest on the dead bodies.
Accordingly, inquest was done in presence of the pancha witness
Prakash and another witness Anil Raikwar. The inquest panchanama
of Chandu is at Exh.23 whereas inquest panchanama of Sunita is at
Exh.-24. The Investigating Officer, PI Lakde noticed injury on the first
informant Premshankar Jha and, therefore, he was sent for medical
examination on the requisition letter Exh.-66. He also seized his
clothes under seizure memo Exh.-50. He arrested all the three accused
persons on 18.08.2011 under Ehx.56 to 58. At the time of arrest, the
Investigation Officer noticed blood stains on the clothes of accused
Nago. The clothes were therefore seized in presence of Pancha witness
Kishor Sadahnkar (PW6). The said seizure memo is at Exh.-47. At the
same time, the clothes of accused no.2-Sunil were also seized under
seizure memo Exh.-48. All the seized articles were duly sealed in
presence of Kishor (PW6)
On the morning of 18.08.2011, the Investigating Officer in
presence of panchas drew the spot panchanama Exh.-54.
7 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
6. During the course of police custody on 19.08.2011, accused
no.1-Nago Redlawar made a disclosure statement in presence of the
prosecution witness no.5-Pranit Tawade and he agreed to show the
place where the weapon of the offence is concealed. The admissible
portion of the statement of accused no.1-Nago is at Exh.-44. The
weapon was seized at the behest of accused no.1 from the place shown
by the accused no.1 and it was seized and sealed in presence of Pranit
Tawade, the panch witness and the said recovery memo is at Exh.44-A.
A motorcycle was also seized on the memorandum
statement of accused no.2-Sunil. The memorandum statement is at
Exh.-45 and the recovery panchanama of the said motorcycle is at
Exh.45-A.
The Investigating Officer also recorded statements of
witnesses. All the articles seized during the course of investigation
were sent to the Chemical Analyser under the requisition Exh.-77. The
statement of witnesses were also recorded under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure by Mr. Uday Joshi (PW8), the learned
Magistrate. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed the charge-sheet before the court of law.
7. After the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the
learned Sessions Judge on 14.06.2012 framed charge against the
8 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses. All the accused persons'
statements under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. were also recorded. The
accused persons also examined two witnesses as defence witnesses.
The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the prosecution case
and after scanning the evidence brought on record, found that all the
accused persons are guilty and consequently passed the impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
9. Before this Court, accused no.1-Nago Redlawar is
represented by learned counsel Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, accused no.2-Sunil
Sakharkar is represented by learned counsel Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar and
accused no.3-Shahnaj was represented by learned counsel Mr. R. M.
Daga. In all these three appeals, State was represented by Shri V. A.
Thakre, Additional Public Prosecutor. With the able assistance of all
these counsel, we have examined the entire record and proceedings for
reappreciation of the prosecution case. All the learned counsel
submitted that the respective appellants cannot be held guilty as found
by the Court below and prayed for their acquittal.
9 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
10. The learned counsel for the accused no.1, though made
feeble attempt for securing acquittal, his submissions mainly revolve
around for lesser punishment by submitting that the offence in
question can be scaled down to Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code.
In order to buttress his point, he kept reliance on various judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to him, the incident in question
has occurred in a spur of moment. He submitted that both the
deceased suffered single injury and, therefore, it is fit case wherein this
Court should scale down the offence to Section 304-I of the IPC.
11. As per the submissions of the learned counsel Shri
Bhandarkar, no specific role of assault is attributed against accused
no.2-Sunil and the only role that is attributed to him is that he caught
hold of the hands of the deceased Chandu and, therefore, he cannot be
held responsible for his death and it is only Nago, accused no.1 who is
responsible for the knife blow. Shri Daga, the learned counsel for
accused no.3-Shahnaj also reiterated the said arguments by submitting
that the role against Shahnaj is that she caught hold of hairs of the
deceased Sunita. It is also submitted on behalf of the learned counsel
that the prosecution has not proved that Shehnaj is wife of accused
no.1 Nago Redlawar as claimed by the prosecution.
10 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.Thakre vehemently submitted that the case of the prosecution is
fully proved in view of the evidence of the three eye witnesses namely;
Premshankar Jha (PW2), Mahendrasingh Randhava (PW3) and Papita
(PW4). He also submitted that there is a corroborative piece of
evidence in the nature of the scientific evidence. He pointed out that
human blood stains were found on the clothes of Nago, accused no.1.
He also submitted that the weapon that was seized at the instance of
appellant-Nago was also stained with human blood. He also invited
our attention to the fact that the clothes of Premshankar Jha (PW2)
were also stained with blood. He pointed out that accused no.3-
Shahnaj has admitted her presence on the spot. He replied to the
submissions of the learned counsel Mr. Daga, which was in consonance
with the statement of the accused no.3 under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. As per her statement, Shahnaj was the eye witness and she is
falsely implicated in the crime. It is the submission of learned A.P.P.
that it is the figment of imagination of accused no.3-Shahnaj. The
learned A.P.P. Mr. Thakare submitted that there was no reason for the
prosecution to falsely implicate the said accused-Shahnaj in the crime.
He, therefore, submitted that the appeals be dismissed.
13. Dr. Nagsen Sakhare (PW10) was the Medical Officer at
11 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
General Hospital, Chandrapur. The evidence of Dr. Sakhare, discloses
that he has conducted more than 250 post mortems.
On 18.08.2011, dead bodies were referred to him for
autopsy. The autopsy surgeon Dr. Nagsen Sakhare found following
external injuries on the dead body of Chandu Kamble:
"Puncutred incised wound, elliptical in shape,
located at 9th and 10th ribs, left side at anterior axillary line
to mid-axillary line. Vertically oriented of size 6 cm long
and 3 cm wide of skin surface.
Track is about 13 cm deep, evenly cut, directed
from left to right, slightly downward, track perforated
abdominal wall and penetrates the spleen."
On internal examination, he noticed the following injuries:
"Fracture 9th and 10th ribs at mid axillary line. Perforated
abdominal wall left side. Perforated peritoneum left side
with dark red brown coloured blood and blood clots
present of about 1500 to 1800 m. Laceration over convex
surface of spleen (penetrated laceration of spleen)."
He proved the post mortem report of Chandu Exh.-71.
According to the autopsy surgeon, internal and external injuries were
corresponding to each other.
Dr. Sakhare also performed post mortem on the dead body
of Sunita Kamble and, he noticed the following external injuries on her
dead body:
12 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
"Punctured incised wound, elliptical in shape located 2 cm.
below xyphysternum at epigastric region 2 cm lateral to
mid line, vertically oriented of size 5 cm long and 3 cm
wide of skin surface.
Track of wound is about 10-12 cm deep. Evenly cut,
directed from front to back slightly downward. Track
perforated abdominal wall and penetrates liver and
stomach."
He also noticed following internal injuries:
"Performated abdominal wall of epigastric
region. Peritoneum was perforated. Dark red brown
coloured blood and blood clots present of about 1200 to
1500 ml. Perforation of greater curvature and fundus of
stomach. Laceration over right superior-anterior border
of liver."
The doctor proved the post mortem report of the deceased
Sunita and it is at Exh.-72. According to Dr. Sakhare, both the
deceased died due to injury to the vital organs and according to him,
the injuries were due to the sharp weapon like knife.
14. In view of the post mortem report and the evidence of
Dr.Sakhare, it is established by the prosecution that the couple died by
homicidal death.
Dr. Sakhare also examined the knife which was referred to
him by the Investigating Officer. The report of the examination of
13 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
weapon is duly proved by Dr. Sakhare and it is at Exh.-74. The said
report shows that the weapon is having blade of 19 cm. in length, 4
cm. in breadth and having thickness of 3 cm. apart from having the
handle of 22 cm. Dr. Sakhare has also expressed his opinion that the
weapon which was sent to him is responsible for the injuries as noticed
by him while conducting the post mortem. After examination of the
weapon in a sealed condition, the weapon was returned to the
Investigating Officer which was ultimately sent to the Chemical
Analysis for its examination.
15. Three witnesses have witnessed the actual assault on both
the deceased. They are Premshankar Jna (PW2), Mahendrasingh
Randhava (PW3) and Papita (PW4).
Premshankar (PW2) is also the first informant. From the
FIR and from his evidence and from the spot panchanama, it is clear
that the incident in question has occurred in front of the dhaba run by
Premshankar, which is known as Shruti T-Ponit Dhaba. The incident
in question has occurred at 7.30 p.m. Therefore, the presence of
Premshankar (PW2) is the most natural. The evidence of the eye
witness Premshankar and Mahendrasingh is attacked by the defence
counsel that these two witnesses are introduced by the prosecution to
suit its case at the behest of one Gyani Sheth. According to them, from
14 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
the line of cross-examination, it is really doubtful that these witnesses
are independent witnesses.
The evidence of these two witnesses are also attached on
the ground that there is a variance in the version of these two
witnesses on the point of reaching of accused no.1 Nago Redlawar on
the motorcycle on the spot.
16. The evidence of Premshankar Jha shows that when he was
present at the Dhaba, accused Nago came there and he made inquiries
with him regarding the deceased Chandu. At that time, the deceased
Chandu came there on a two wheeler and he demanded salary of three
months from the accused no.1-Nago Redlawar. At that time, accused
Nago slapped Chandu since he demanded the salary and also asked
Chandu to vacate the premises, which is adjacent to the dhaba in
which Chandu was residing. The evidence of Premshankar discloses
that thereafter he wiped off a big knife from his waist and at that time
accused no.2-Sunil ran towards the spot from the nearby pan thela and
he caught hold of the deceased Chandu thereafter Nago gave the knife
blows. Immediately, wife of Chandu reached to the spot and she
raised shouts for help and at that time the accused no.3 caught hairs of
Sunita from backside and then Sunita was assaulted by knife by Nago
Redlawar.
15 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
17. As per the version of Premshankar Jha (PW2), at the time
of the incident, when he tried to intervene, the accused Nago
Redlawar moved the knife in his direction resulting into the minor
injuries on his body.
As the Investigating Officer noticed injury on the person of
Premshankar, he was referred to the Doctor. Premshankar was duly
examined by Dr. Sulbhewar (PW9), who gave injury certificate, which
is at Exh.-67. Also, the clothes of Premshankar, which were stained
with blood were also seized under the seizure memo Exh.-50 which
were sent to the Chemical Analsyser and the report Exh.-82 shows the
presence of the blood on the clothes of Premshankar Jha (PW2). The
injury on the person of Premshankar lends credence about the version
of this witness. Further, in a lengthy cross-examination, the core of
the testimony of the evidence of Premshankar about actual assault on
both the deceased has remained unshaken. It is also brought on
record that in front of Shruti T-Point, there is an electric pole and it is
also having its reference in the spot Panchanama Exh.54.
18. The witness Mahendrasingh Randhava (PW3) has also
witnessed the incident in question from the shop of repairing of tyre
near dhaba. The evidence of Mahendrasingh (PW3) and the evidence
16 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
of Premshankar (PW2) corroborates each other on the actual assault.
His evidence has also remained unshattered at the hands of the
learned cross-examiners.
19. Another witness is Ku. Papita (PW4). She is the daughter
of the unfortunate couple. Before administering oath to this witness,
the learned Judge of the Court below found that the age of this child
witness is between 14 years and she understands the sanctity of oath
and, therefore, oath was administered to her. Her evidence discloses
that her house is adjoining to the dhaba. The house is owned by
accused Nago Redlawar. As per her evidence when she was laying in
the courtyard of the house near dhaba at that time accused Nago came
on motorcycle and he asked her father to vacate the room
immediately. Thereafter, when her father demanded the salary for
three months, accused Nago gave a slap and at that time Sunil, who is
referred to as son in law of Nago, had caught hold of hands of her
father and, thereafter, Nago dealt with knife blows. Her evidence is
also in conformity with the evidence of Premshankar (PW2) and
Mahendrasingh (PW2) in respect of the assault on her mother. She
has identified all the three accused persons during her evidence as
identified by other two witnesses. Her evidence is attacked mainly on
the ground that she being the daughter of the deceased, she is an
17 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
interested witness and, therefore, her evidence be discarded. We are
afraid of accepting the said submission made by the learned counsel
for the defence especially when there is nothing in the cross-
examination to disbelieve this witness on the point of assault.
Curiously, only to this child witness, the suggestions are
given by the accused no.1 about the conversation between Nago and
Chandu that the deceased Chandu was having sexual relations with his
wife and he also questioned the potency of Nago and, therefore, Nago
has made a murderous assault on him. These suggestions are stoutly
denied by this witness.
20. According to the leaned counsel for accused no.3-Shahnaj,
it is not established by the prosecution that she is wife of Nago. The
evidence which is available shows that she was residing in the house
situated behind the dhaba and the house is owned by Nago Redlawar.
From the evidence, it is clear that she was staying with Nago.
Therefore, there is nothing unusual on the part of the prosecution if
they are referring Shahnaj as the wife of Nago. Further, the evidence
of Mohd. Ansari (DW1) shows that though he is not aware about the
relations between Shahnaj and accused Nago but they resided in one
house.
18 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
21. Admittedly, both the deceased were actually assaulted by
accused no.1-Nago. From the prosecution evidence it is clear that
Nago demanded vacation of the room and upon that when Chandu
demanded his three month's salary, he was assaulted by means of
knife. It is established on record that Nago took out a big knife from
his waist. Looking to the nature of the injury, as observed by the
Doctor and looking to the fact that when Sunita tried to save her
husband that time she was assaulted by Nago, we are of the firm view
that no leniency can be shown to the accused Nago by scaling down
the offence from Section 302 to Section 304-A of the IPC as submitted
by the learned counsel for the accused no.1-Nago.
22. In paragraph 22 of reported judgment in the case of
Goudappa and others ..vs.. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 675,
the apex court has observed as under:
"22. We have bestowed our consideration to the
rival submissions and the submission made by Ms. Shenoy
commend us. Ordinarily, every man is responsible
criminally for a criminal act done by him. No man can be
held responsible for an independent act and wrong
committed by another. The principle of criminal liability is
that the person who commits an offence is responsible for
that and he can only be held guilty. However, Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code makes an exception to this principle.
It lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a
19 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in
the existence of common intention, animating the accused
leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such
intention. It deals with the doing of separate acts, similar
or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance
of common intention. In such situation, each person is
liable for the result of that as if he had done that act
himself. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code thus lays
down a principle of joint criminal liability which is only a
rule of evidence but does not create a substantive offence.
Therefore, if the act is the result of a common intention
that every person who did the criminal act share, that
common intention would make him liable for the offence
committed irrespective of the role which he had in its
perpetration. Then how to gather common intention? The
common intention is gathered from the manner in which
the crime has been committed, the conduct of the accused
soon before and after the occurrence, the determination
and concern with which the crime was committed, the
weapon carried by the accused and from the nature and
injury caused by one or some of them. Therefore, for
arriving at a conclusion whether the accused had the
common intention to commit an offence of which they
could be convicted, the totality of circumstances must be
taken into consideration."
23. Though, actually the assault is not attributed to accused
no.2-Sunil and accused no.3-Shahnaj, from the evidence it is clear that
20 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
accused no.3-Shahnaj came to the spot at the time of incident. In fact,
this accused has also admitted her presence on the spot in her
statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. before the Court below.
Though she claims that she was, in fact, an eye witness, there is
nothing on record to show that she is having any animosity with the
police department and, there is any reason for the police to falsely
implicate her. The evidence of the three eye witnesses shows that
when the deceased Sunita tried to save her husband, that time she was
pulled away by Shahnaj by pulling her hairs from the backside and at
that time, Sunita was assaulted. It is established on record that she
resides with Nago and Nago was demanding vacation of the house.
Further, the evidence does not show that she tried to prevent Nago
from making assault. On the contrary, when Sunita was trying to save
her husband, she was prevented by Shahnaj.
Further, accused no.2-Sunil caught hold of the deceased
Chandu from backside and that has facilitated Nago to make assault
on the deceased. It is established on record that initially a slap was
given by Nago due to which Chandu fell down on the ground. The
prosecution case clearly shows that when Chandu stood up, that time
he never made any attempt to retaliate upon Nago. However, at that
time, accused no.2-Sunil reached to the spot and immediately caught
hold of his hands and thereafter knife blow was given to him. This
21 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
clearly shows that accused no.2-Sunil is vicariously liable on the
touchstone of Section 34 of the IPC.
24. The FIR is immediately lodged. Lodging of the FIR
promptly rules out the false implication of the accused persons. All the
accused persons are specifically named in the FIR. The role played by
each of the accused is specifically mentioned in the FIR. The evidence
of the eye witness is free from all exaggerations and they have given
the actual account of the incident before the Court. There are no
reasons to disbelieve these three eye witnesses. In our view, the
learned Judge of the Court below has rightly believed the evidence of
these eye witnesses. Further, there is also corroboration in the nature
of scientific evidence i.e. the Chemcial Analyser's report, which shows
that the knife, which was recovered at the discovery of the accused
no.1 was having human blood. The clothes of Nago are also stained
with human blood and no explanation is offered for the same. Though,
no blood was found on the clothes of accused no.2-Sunil, it is hardly
material since according to the prosecution witnesses, he caught hold
of Chandu from back and Chandu was attacked in his stomach by
Nago. Merely because the clothes of Shahnaj were not seized during
the course of investigation that by itself does not render the entire
prosecution case as untrustworthy. At the most, it will be a lapse on
22 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
the part of the Investigating Officer and for such lapse, the justice
cannot be made a victim.
25. On reappreciation of the entire evidence as brought on
record by the prosecution, we see no reason to interfere with the
judgment and order of the learned trial Court. That leads us to pass
the following order.
ig ORDER
(1) Appellant Nago Rushi Redlawar (accused no.1)
and appellant Sunil Ramesh Sakharkar (accused no.2) are
rightly found guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
insofar as murder of Chandu Kamble and his wife Sunita
Kamble is concerned. Consequently, appeals filed by them
are dismissed.
(2) Appellant Shehnaj (accused no.3) is found guilty
of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code for murder of Sunita wife of
Chandu Kamble. However, her conviction for murder of
Chandu is quashed and set aside. Consequently, her appeal
is also dismissed.
23 apeal166.215.406.13.odt
(3) Muddemal property be dealt with as directed by
the Sessions Court after expiry of period of appeals.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
