Bombay High Court
Ritesh @ Karan Rashmikant Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 July, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 of 8 1.cr.apeal.1425.11.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1425 OF 2011
Ritesh @ Karan Rashmikant Pawar ]
Aged 20 years, Occ: Service ]
Residing at Mangaldeep Society, ]
Raigad Vibhag, Near Well Parksite, ]
Vikhroli (W) Mumbai ]
(Now Nashik Central Jail, Nashik) ].. Appellant
[Ori. Accused No.1 ]
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
Through Parksite Police Station,
ig ]
]
Dist. Mumbai ].. Respondent
....
Ms. Sarojini Upadhyay Advocate appointed for the Appellant
Mrs. A.S. Pai A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : JULY 01, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]
1 This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original
accused No.1 against the judgment and order dated
29.10.2010 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Bombay at Sewree in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2010. By
jdk 2 of 8 1.cr.apeal.1425.11.j.doc
the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge
convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and
sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.
1000/- in default R.I. for six months.
2 The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:
(i) Deceased Mangesh was the son of PW 1 Ramdas.
Devidas was the younger brother of PW 1 Ramdas. The
appellant was the son of Devidas. There was some property
dispute between the family of Ramdas and Devidas.
(ii) Incident occurred on 26.10.2009 at about 8.45 p.m.
The incident occurred near Kailash Corporator Building. PW 2
Balasaheb was the Security Supervisor. His duty was to
supervise the watchmen working in Kailash Corporator Building
and Kailash Industrial Complex. At about 8.45 p.m. Balasaheb
came to Kailash Corproator Building. He saw the appellant and
the deceased. They were scuffling with each other. He then
saw the appellant taking out a knife and assaulting Mangesh on
the chest, hence, Balasaheb shouted to call people. In the
meanwhile, public gathered there. The brother of Mangesh
jdk 3 of 8 1.cr.apeal.1425.11.j.doc
also came to the spot. Then brother of Mangesh and some
other person took Mangesh to Rajawadi hospital. There
Doctor examined Mangesh and declared that he was dead.
PW 1 Ramdas the father of deceased, lodged F.I.R. Thereafter
investigation commenced. Dead body of Mangesh was sent for
post-mortem. After completion of investigation, the charge
sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions for trial.
3 Charge came to be framed against the appellant
along with other accused under Sections 302 and 120-B of IPC.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and
claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of
total denial and false implication. After going through the
evidence adduced in the present case, the learned Judge
convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1
above, hence, this appeal. However, the learned Judge
acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 120-B of
IPC.
4 We have heard the learned counsel appointed for the
jdk 4 of 8 1.cr.apeal.1425.11.j.doc
appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. After giving our
anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the
case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Judge and the
evidence on record, for the below mentioned reasons, we are
of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
In order to sustain the conviction, the prosecution is
mainly relying on the evidence of PW 2 Balasaheb. Balasaheb
has stated that he knew the appellant as well as the deceased.
The appellant and the deceased were both working in the
company in which Balasaheb was working as Supervisor. His
duty was to supervise the watchmen working in Kailash
Corporator Building and Kailash Industrial Complex. At about
8.45 p.m., Balasaheb came to Kailash Corproator Building. He
saw the appellant and the deceased. They were scuffling with
each other. He then saw the appellant taking out a knife and
assaulting Mangesh on the chest, hence, Balasaheb shouted to
call people. In the meanwhile, public gathered there. The
brother of Mangesh also came to the spot. Then brother of
Mangesh and some other person took Mangesh to Rajawadi
jdk 5 of 8 1.cr.apeal.1425.11.j.doc
Hospital. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination
of Balasaheb so as to cause us to disbelieve his testimony. We
are of the opinion that his testimony inspires implicit
confidence, hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the
same. The evidence of Balasaheb not only shows that he
witnessed the appellant assaulting Mangesh but his evidence
also shows the motive for the appellant to assault Mangesh.
Balasaheb has stated that there was property dispute between
the accused and the deceased.
6 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
if Balasaheb knew the family of the deceased, he ought to have
called the family of the deceased and immediately informed
them as soon as he saw the scuffle going on between the
appellant and the deceased. She submitted that the fact that
he did not do so, shows that he was not present at the time of
the incident and he has not witnessed the incident. As far as
this contention is concerned, it is seen that within a fraction of
second of the scuffle taking place, the appellant assaulted
Mangesh with a knife. There was hardly any time for
Balasaheb to call the family of the deceased. Moreover, on
jdk 6 of 8 1.cr.apeal.1425.11.j.doc
seeing the scuffle, he would not apprehend that the appellant
would assault Mangesh with a knife. In any event, as soon as
Balasaheb shouted for help, the brother of Mangesh came
within a few minutes to the spot. In such case, there was no
necessity for Balasaheb to call the family of the deceased from
his cell phone and inform them about the incident.
The evidence of PW 2 Balasaheb is corroborated by
the medical evidence. PW 4 Dr. Tadvi conducted the post-
mortem on the dead body of Mangesh. On external
examination, Dr. Tadvi found four scratch marks and the below
mentioned injury on the dead body of Mangesh:
" Stab wound over the center of chest left side 6 cm
away from the right from the nipple / direction size of
the wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm deep with sharp edge.
Piercing deep into the sternum size 3 cm x 1.5 cm.
Piercing pericardium anteriorly size 2.75 cm. x 1.5 cm
with blood clots positive in the pericardium sac.
Myocardium shows stab wound anteriorly, cut wound
size 2.75 x 1.25 cm. deep into chamber with blood
clots positively."
jdk 7 of 8 1.cr.apeal.1425.11.j.doc
In the opinion of Dr. Tadvi, probable cause of the
death is stab wound perforating heart with internal
hemorrhage in a case of assault with sharp edged weapon.
Dr. Tadvi has stated that injury no.1 was sufficient to cause the
death.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
Balasaheb speaks of only one assault by the appellant on
Mangesh, however, the Doctor has noticed six injuries, hence,
the evidence of PW 2 Balasaheb cannot be relied upon. As far
as this contention is concerned, it is seen that injury nos. 2 to 5
are just scratch marks. Balasaheb has stated that the assault
was on the chest and there was scuffle, hence, it is during this
scuffle that these scratch marks could have been caused. As
far as injury no. 6 is concerned, there was perforation of
sternum. The said injury is mentioned in injury no.1 which is
stab wound over the center of the chest. This stab wound also
caused perforation of sternum. This injury also pierced deep
into the sternum and pierced pericardium and the heart. Thus
we find no merit in this contention.
jdk 8 of 8 1.cr.apeal.1425.11.j.doc
9 In view of the above, we do not feel it necessary to
advert to any other evidence as we are of the opinion that the
evidence of PW 2 Balasaheb and PW 4 Dr. Tadvi is sufficient to
sustain the conviction. In this view of the matter, we find no
merit in the appeal, hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Office to communicate this order to the appellant
through the concerned Jail Superintendent.
11 We quantify legal fees to be paid to appointed
Advocate Ms. Sarojini Upadhyay by the High Court Legal
Services Committee at Rs. 5000/-.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
