Channilal S/O Punaji Bisen vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3562 Bom

                                                                                  APEAL.66.14
                                                 1

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                  
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                          
                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2014




                                                         
         Channilal s/o Punaji Bisen,
         Aged about 53 years, Occ. 
         Cultivation, R/o Village Kidangipar,
         Tah. & Dist. Gondia.




                                          
         (In Bhandara Prison).                                ....           APPELLANT.
                             
                      // VERSUS //

         The State of Maharashtra, 
                            
         through its Police Station
         Officer, Police Station Gangazari, 
         Tah. & Dist. Gondia.                                 ....           RESPONDENT.
      


         Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant,
   



         Mr. V.A. Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.





                               CORAM :  B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.     
                                DATED  :  JULY 4, 2016.


         JUDGMENT (PER B.R. GAVAI, J.)

1] Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Gondia dated 12.12.2013 in Sessions Trial

No. 75/12, thereby convicting the present appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing

APEAL.66.14

him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-

and in default, to suffer R.I. for one year, the appellant has

approached this Court.

2] The prosecution case as could be gathered from the

material placed on record is thus :-

PW.2 Manglesh Giri was having love affair with daughter

of accused Nos. 1 & 2, namely, Shashikala. Approximately, prior to

two months of the incident, Manglesh had eloped with Shashikala and

gone to Chhatisgarh. There they resided for about 15 days. They

returned back to village Kidangipar. After two days, they went to

Chhatisgarh. Manglesh performed marriage with Shashikala and

registered in the Sub-Registrar office at Churikhadan and after 1½

months Manglesh and Shashikala returned to village Kidangipar.

They went to Police Station Gangazari and informed about the

registered marriage. On 21.5.2011 Manglesh went to Khamari to the

house of his relative. On 24.5.2011 deceased Jashodabai went to

village Tirora market. Manglesh returned to village at around 5 p.m.

Ranjita, Kamlesh, Kanchan, Sankesh, Shashikala and Manglesh

were in the house. After dinner they were sitting in the verandah.

The accused No.1 Channilal came to their courtyard and started

APEAL.66.14

abusing to Manglesh in filthy language. Accused No.1 told Manglesh

to stay and that he will return back after 5 minutes. Accused No.1

returned back. He entered in the Chhapri. Shashikala obstructed

him. Accused No.1 gave 2-4 slaps to her and she fell down.

Thereafter, Manglesh obstructed him. He took out a knife.

Manglesh snatched the same and threw away. Thereafter, accused

no.2 gave 2-4 slaps to Shashikala and was telling her to go to their

house. All the accused went to their house. Thereafter Manglesh

and his wife Shashikala went to house of Sarpanch of village

Dongargaon. He narrated all the incident to Sarpanch. Thereafter,

Sarpanch took him to Police Station Gangazari.

3] Accused No.1 again returned back to the house of

deceased Jashodabai having axe in his hand. Accused No.1 broke

electric bulb in the courtyard of the deceased Jashodabai. Deceased

Jashodabai was coming from market. Accused Nos. 2 & 3 told

accused No.1 that "Aa Gayi Sali Rand, Maro Sali Ko". Thereafter,

accused No.1 beat deceased Jashodabai by axe on her head, hands

and legs. Deceased Jashodabai fell down in the drain. Even

thereafter accused No.1 was beating her by axe. She died on the

spot. Since Manglesh and Shashikala had already gone to Police

APEAL.66.14

Station, police came in the jeep. They saw dead body of Jashodabai

and took family members of deceased Jashodabai to Police Station.

Daughter of Jashodabai PW.1 Ranjita lodged oral report below Exh.

18. On the basis of the said oral report, crime came to be registered

vide FIR below Exh. 35.

4] After registration of crime, the investigation was set in

motion. At the conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be

filed against the accused in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Gondia.

Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions

Judge, the same came to be committed to the learned Sessions

Court, Gondia. The learned trial Judge framed the Charge below

Exh. 9 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 & 504

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused

pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the

trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused nos. 2 & 3 of the

charges charged with. The learned trial Judge also acquitted the

appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 504 & 323 of

Indian Penal Code. However, he recorded the conviction and

sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been

APEAL.66.14

filed.

5] Mr. R.K. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the appellant,

submits that the only evidence against the appellant is that of the eye-

witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased and as such, interested

witnesses. He submits that the conviction solely on the basis of the

interested witnesses would not be sufficient to record an order of

conviction against the appellant. The learned Counsel, therefore,

submits that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused

acquitted of the charges charged with.

6] Mr. V.A. Thakare, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent/State, on the contrary, submits that the

learned trial Judge has correctly appreciated the evidence placed on

record and no interference would be warranted in the order of

conviction.

7] With the assistance of the learned A.P.P. and the learned

Counsel for the appellant, we have scrutinized the evidence on

record.

APEAL.66.14

8] In view of the evidence of PW.15 Dr. Pallavi Kumbre and

the post-mortem report below Exh. 45, we do not find that any

interference is warranted in the finding that the death of the deceased

is homicidal.

9] No doubt that in the present case the conviction is mainly

based on the evidence of eye-witnesses who are relatives of the

deceased. However, merely because the witnesses are interested

cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. If the testimony of

such witnesses is found to be trust-worthy, reliable and cogent, the

conviction on the basis of the testimony of such witnesses would be

sustainable in law. In the light of this guiding principle, we will

examine the evidence on record.

10] PW.1 Ranjita is the daughter of the deceased. She

narrates regarding love affair between her cousin Manglesh with

Shashikala, the daughter of the appellant and their performing

marriage at Chhatisgarh. She states that on account of the said

incident, the accused persons were threatening them to kill. She

further states that on the day of the incident at around 8 p.m. accused

Channilal came to their house. He broke electric light in the

APEAL.66.14

courtyard. That time, wife and mother-in-law were also with him. Her

mother was coming from market. Accused Nos. 2 & 3 said to

accused No.1 "Aa Gayi Sali Rand, Maro Sali Ko". Thereafter,

accused no.1 beat her mother by axe on her head, hands and legs.

Her mother fell down in the drain. She states that prior to the said

incident, accused No.1 Channilal slapped his sister-in-law Shashikala

and also tried to kill Manglesh by knife. Though this witness has

been thoroughly cross-examined, nothing damaging has come in the

evidence. Not only that, her oral testimony is thoroughly corroborated

by her oral report below Exh. 18 and FIR below Exh. 35.

11] PW.2 Manglesh states in his evidence that he and his

brother Kamlesh were residing along with the family members of

Jashodabai. He narrates about his love affair with Shashikala - the

daughter of accused no.1 and they performing the Court marriage at

Rajnandgaon. He states that when he returned to village, the

accused and family members used to oppose them. He states that

on 24.5.2011 the deceased had gone to Tirora for market. He

returned to village at around 5 p.m. Ranjita, Kamlesh, Kanchana,

Sankesh, Shashikala and he were at the house. After dinner, when

they were sitting in the verandah accused no.1 Channilal came to the

APEAL.66.14

courtyard and started abusing him. He asked them to stay there and

went back saying that he will return. After five minutes, he returned

back. He assaulted Shashikala and this witness. He took out a knife.

PW.2 Manglesh snatched that knife and threw away. Thereafter the

accused went to their house. This witness went to Dongargaon at the

house of Sarpanch. He narrated the incident. Sarpanch took them to

Police Station. When they were in the Police Station, his brother

came to Police Station and informed about the assault on the

deceased Jashodabai by the accused. This witness has also been

thoroughly cross-examined. However, nothing damaging has come

in his evidence.

12] The evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by other

eye-witnesses, namely, PW.3 Kamlesh, PW.4 Chainlal, PW.5 Tejlal,

PW.6 Khusrang, PW.7 Puranlal and PW.9 Ashok.

13] We find that in view of the ocular testimony of all these

witnesses, which is consistent in so far as the assault on the

deceased is concerned, no interference would be warranted with the

finding of the learned trial Judge regarding the guilt of the accused.

Not only this, but the evidence of these eye-witnesses is also

APEAL.66.14

corroborated by the evidence of PW.10 Rajeshwar to whom an extra-

judicial confession has been given by the present appellant. The

scientific evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. The

scientific evidence in respect of the seizure of the axe on a

memorandum of the accused and his clothes having blood also

corroborates the prosecution case.

14]

In that view of the matter, we find that the prosecution has

established beyond reasonable doubt that it is the present appellant

who is the author of the crime.

15] In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE .

J.