Bombay High Court
Mukesh S/O Yogiraj Dongarge vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
(1) crap810.03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2003
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4446 OF 2014
* * * * *
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant
Through P.S. CIDCO (R), Nanded.
ig Versus
1. Mukesh s/o. Yogiraj Dongarge .. Respondents
Age. 18 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. CIDCO, New Nanded.
2. Bandu Satwaji Jadhav
Age. 17 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. CIDCO, New Nanded.
Mr. R.B. Bagul, A.P.P. for the applicant/State.
Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. V.P. Kadam, Advocate for respondent No.2.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4446 OF 2014
Mukesh s/o. Yogiraj Dongarge .. Applicant
Age. 31 years, Occ. Advocate,
R/o. Permanent Address CIDCO,
New Nanded, Dist. Nanded,
Presently residing at 402, Ganga Tower,
Sector-21, Kmaothe, Navi Mumbai.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:45:00 :::
(2) crap810.03
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. R.B. Bagul, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE &
V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ.
RESERVED ON : 26.07.2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 01.09.2016
JUDGMENT [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]:-
1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal
challenging judgment and order dated 04.08.2003 in
Sessions Case No.161 of 1998 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Nanded. Respondent/accused were charge-
sheeted in Crime No.39 of 1998 of Nanded Rural Police
Station for offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It was alleged that the accused had committed
murder of one Siddharth on 04.03.1998 at about 08.00 p.m.
The prosecution examined in all thirteen witnesses.
(3) crap810.03
3. P.W.5-Hiraman is father of Siddharth, the victim
in this case. He stated that at the time of incident
Siddharth was a student of 11th standard and was
attending Coaching Classes between 07.00 p.m. to 08.00
p.m. every day. On 04.03.1998 at about 07.00 p.m. or so,
he received telephone call from Government Hospital,
Nanded informing him that his son Siddharth was serious
and he should come to hospital. He went to the hospital
and found Siddharth dead. He noticed one injury on
Siddharth's neck. While he was going back home, one Sunil
Wadgaonkar-P.W.7 met him. Sunil (P.W.7) told him as to
how Siddharth was murdered. Hiraman and Sunil then went
to police station. Hiraman lodged a complaint.
4. P.W.7 is Sunil. He stated that he knew
Siddharth. On 03.03.1998 at about 09.00 p.m. Siddharth
met him and told that Datta Patil had collision with one
girl due to which Anil and accused Mukesh quarreled with
Datta. Siddharth further told him that Siddharth
intervened in the quarrel. So accused Mukesh and accused
(4) crap810.03
Anil threatened him of consequence on next date. Sunil
then told Siddharth that Anil - the elder brother, was
known to him and he would help in settling the dispute.
On 04.03.1998 at about 08.00 p.m. while Sunil was going
towards the Market, he met Siddharth the victim, accused
Mukesh, Anil and accused Bandu. They were walking towards
the library. Sunil then told them that they should not
quarrel and that they were still student. P.W.7-Sunil
crossed few steps ahead and then heard some shouts. He
looked back and noticed that Anil had caught hold of
Siddharth's collar and accused Mukesh was beating
Siddharth by hands. He also noticed that accused Bandu
delivered a knife blow over Siddharth's body. Siddharth
shouted and fell down. Siddharth sustained bleeding
injury on his neck. P.W.7-Sunil said that he tried to
catch Anil, Mukesh and Bandu. So he chased them but could
not catch them. He came back to the spot and learnt that
police had already shifted Siddharth elsewhere.
Thereafter, he learnt that Siddharth died. In the cross-
examination this witness admitted that after the incident
(5) crap810.03
he did not go to police station and his statement was not
recorded. He admitted further that he went to hospital at
about 11.30 p.m. where family members of Siddharth were
present.
5. P.W.8 is Suresh, who stated that on 04.03.1998
at about 07.45 p.m. while he was walking towards the
library, he noticed three boys were beating one boy. He
identified the assailants as accused Mukesh, accused
Bandu and Anil. He also identified the victim as
Siddharth. He then noticed that Bandu took out a knife
and delivered a blow to Siddharth. Siddharth sat down.
The assailants ran away. One Sanjay, friend of Suresh
came there riding a motorcycle. Suresh (P.W.8) and Sanjay
then took Siddharth on motorcycle and went towards the
police station near Water Reservoir. Siddharth started
getting convulsions. So, motorcycle was stopped and an
auto-rikshaw was called. One Bansode and Prasanjeet
Bansode thereafter accompanied Siddharth to the police
station in the auto-rickshaw. On the other hand Suresh
(6) crap810.03
(P.W.8) went to the house of Siddharth to inform his
family members. P.W.8-Suresh went to Siddharth's house
and found Siddharth's sister in the house. He did not
tell her about the incident. But went to house.
Thereafter, Suresh met Siddharth's father on road. He
told him that Siddharth was taken to the police station.
He then went to the police station where he learnt that
Siddharth was taken to the hospital. He went to the
Hospital and learnt that Siddharth died.
6. P.W.9-Sanjay is one more eye-witness who stated
that at about 08.00 p.m. he saw mob of 15-20 boys near
the library. He noticed that Siddharth was being held by
two boys and one boy who was short in height delivered
knife blow over the Siddharth's neck. Siddharth sat down.
The assailants ran away. He tried to chase the assailants
but, in vain.
7. P.W.10 is Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale. He performed
the postmortem examination of Siddharth dead body. He
(7) crap810.03
noticed one wedge shape stab injury on the left side of
the Siddharth's neck. On dissection of the neck he
noticed injuries to various internal organs including
common carotid. He said that the injury was sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
8. Learned Judge of the trial Court did not believe
eye-witness account and acquitted the accused.
9. The question is - whether the eye witness
account inspires confidence? The answer is in the
negative. The depositions which are quoted above are
quite haphazard. They are inconsistent. These witnesses
appear to us as got-up witnesses. The two witnesses who
stated that after the incident they tried to catch hold
the assailants are not worthy of reliance because in an
incident of this nature natural reaction is to help the
injured. These two witnesses kept chasing the assailants
for such a long time that when they came back they did
not find Siddharth there. Other two witnesses also do not
(8) crap810.03
inspire confidence, because they did not extend help to
Siddharth even when he noted the incident then. The
evidence that came on record was not trustworthy. We are
not inclined to take any other view in the matter. The
appeal, therefore, should fail.
10. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
11. In view of dismissal of Criminal Appeal,
connected Criminal Application does not survive and
stands disposed of.
[V.L.ACHLIYA,J.] [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.]
snk/2016/AUG16/[email protected]
