Rajendra Babu Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6407 Bom

                                                                                23. cri apeal 719-14.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2014


            Rajendra Babu Kamble
            Age : About 45 Years,
            Convict Prisoner No. C-6198
            At present undergoing sentence of life
            imprisonment at Kolhapur Central Prison,
            Kalamba.                                                        .. Appellant
                                                                               (Org. Accused)
                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                        .. Respondent

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Farhana Shah Advocate (appointed) for the Appellant
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 21, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original

accused against the judgment and order dated 18.3.2014

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad in

Sessions Case No. 7 of 2012. By the said judgment and

order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 10

23. cri apeal 719-14.doc

the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and

sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.

2000/-, in default further imprisonment for 3 Months.

2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:

(a) Complainant in the present case is PW 5 Shivaji.

Deceased Abasaheb was his brother. Their

agricultural land was situated next to each other.

On 13.9.2011 at about 6.00 a.m. to 6.30 a.m.,

Shivaji had gone to his field at Vakhan. His

brother Abasaheb also came behind him and went

to his agricultural land which was situated next to

the land of Shivaji. After arrival, Abasaheb went

to his cattle shed. Appellant Rajendra and one

Prashant (PW 6) were servants of Abasaheb. Both

i.e the appellant and Prashant were present in the

cattle shed. There was one fodder partition

between the cattle shed of PW 5 Shivaji and the

cattle shed of deceased Abasaheb. It was

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 10

23. cri apeal 719-14.doc

transparent. Shivaji saw the deceased and his

servants in the cattle shed. The appellant was

cutting fodder. At that time, PW 6 Prashant came

out of the cattle shed. Abasaheb asked the

appellant why he had assaulted agricultural

servant of his brother i.e servant of PW 5 Shivaji.

When Abasaheb questioned the appellant, the

appellant angrily started assaulting Abasaheb with

sickle. The appellant gave blows on the head,

hands and shoulder of Abasaheb. PW 6 Prashant

immediately rushed to the spot and caught hold of

the appellant. Prashant took out the sickle from

the hand of the appellant. They noticed that

Abasaheb had sustained severe bleeding injuries.

Then PW 5 Shivaji and PW 6 Prashant tied the

injuries and they took Abasaheb to the hospital.

                   PW       5    Shivaji    lodged     the     FIR.         Thereafter

                   investigation commenced.             Abasaheb expired the

                   next day in the hospital.            His body was sent for



jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    3 of 10





                                                               23. cri apeal 719-14.doc




                   postmortem.           PW 8 Dr. Jadhav noticed seven

                   external injuries.        According to Dr. Jadhav, all

injuries were possible by sickle Article 4. After

completion of investigation, the charge sheet

came to be filed.

3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant -

original accused under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant-

accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed

to be tried. His defence was that 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 paragraph 1 above,

hence, this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant

and the learned APP. 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 Sessions Judge and the

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 10

23. cri apeal 719-14.doc

evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of

the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.

5. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the

evidence of two eye witnesses i.e PW 5 Shivaji and PW 6

Prashant. PW 5 Shivaji was the brother of deceased

Abasaheb. He has stated that his agricultural land was

beside the land of Abasaheb. He has further stated that on

13.9.2011 at about 6.00 a.m. to 6.30 a.m, he went to his

field. His brother Abasaheb also came to his field. The cattle

sheds of Shivaji and Abasaheb was separated by one

partition. The partition was transparent. Shivaji saw that

Abasaheb was in the cattle shed and the appellant was

cutting fodder with sickle. Abasaheb asked the appellant

why he had assaulted the agricultural servant of his brother

i.e Shivaji. Thereupon, the appellant got angry and started

assaulting Abasaheb with sickle with which he was cutting

fodder. Meanwhile, PW 6 Prashant immediately rushed to

the spot. Prashant removed the sickle from the hand of the

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 10

23. cri apeal 719-14.doc

appellant. Shivaji noticed that his brother had sustained

severe injuries. They tied the injuries. Thereafter, they took

Abasaheb to the hospital.

6. The next eye witness is PW 6 Prashant. Prashant has

stated that he was working with Abasaheb as an agricultural

servant. The appellant was also working with Abasaheb as

agricultural servant. Prashant has further stated that on

13.9.2011 in the morning, he went near the cattle shed. The

appellant and Abasaheb were in the cattle shed. He heard

shouts from inside the cattle shed, therefore, he went in the

cattle shed and saw that the appellant was assaulting

Abasaheb with sickle. The appellant gave two blows on the

head, one blow on the shoulder and one blow on the back of

Abasaheb. Prashant caught hold of the appellant and

snatched the sickle from his hand and put it on the floor.

Thereafter, Abasaheb was taken to the hospital. On the next

day, Abasaheb expired. He has identified the sickle Article 4

as the same sickle with which the appellant assaulted

jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 10

23. cri apeal 719-14.doc

Abasaheb.

7. That Abasaheb died a homicidal death is proved by the

prosecution through the evidence of PW 5 Shivaji, PW 6

Prashant and PW 8 Dr. Jadhav who conducted the

postmortem on the dead body of Abasaheb. Dr. Jadhav

noticed seven external injuries on the dead body which are

as under:-

1. Sutured wound over left frontal region above left eyebrow 4 c.m. above vertical in direction of length 3 c.m., wound sutured in three stitches;

2. Sutured wound on left tempro pariteal region 3 and 1/2 cm above left ear pinna bifurcated inverted Y shaped, limb of Y one limb sutured 14 stitches and second limb sutured in 11 stitches;

3. Sutured wound 6 cm behind left ear pinna, wound sutured in 8 stitches;

4. Sutured wound 4 cm behind ear lobe left transverse on occipital region sutured in 10 stitches, length of wound 11 cm. Wound is 5 cm below wound No. 3 and shape is inverted C;

5. Two sutured wounds over left shoulder first measuring 8 cm sutured in 8 stitches tailing towards neck. Second measuring 9 cm posterior to first wound. Sutured in three

jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 10

23. cri apeal 719-14.doc

stitches K wire seen protruding;

6. Sutured wound over left dorsal of wrist from ulnar side to base of middle finger extending to the base of hypothenar eminence K wire seen protruding. On cutting of sutured wounds, edges of wound seen clean cut;

7. Superficial linear abrasion on left forearm over dorsal aspect measuring 9 cm tailing towards elbow.

According to Dr. Jadhav, the cause of injuries was hard

and sharp object and the age of the above injuries was within

24 hours. According to Dr. Jadhav, all injuries were ante

mortem in nature. On internal examination, Dr. Jadhav found

the following injuries:-

1. Head - Injury under scalp, haemotoma under scalp present in the left frontal temporal and occipital region;

2. Skull - removal of depress fracture of left parietal bone, lower edges of wound acutely cut;

3. Brain - sub dural haemotoma with intra cerebral hemorrhage in left parietal and occipital region;

4. Thorax - there was no injuries to internal organs i.e lungs and heart.

Dr. Jadhav has stated that the probable cause of death

was death due to sub dural haemotoma with intra cerebral

jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 10

23. cri apeal 719-14.doc

hemorrhage in left parietal and occipital region with

depressed fracture of left parietal bone due to assault-head

injury, due to hard and sharp force impact. Dr. Jadhav has

further stated that all the injuries are possible by sickle

Article 4.

8. When the appellant was arrested, the clothes on his

person were seized. There were blood stains on the clothes.

This has been deposed by panch witness PW 4 Sadik. The

seizure panchnama is at Exh. 21. These clothes were sent to

C.A. As per C.A. reports, the clothes of the appellant were

stained with blood of 'A' group. The C.A. reports further

show that the blood group of the deceased was 'A' group and

blood group of the appellant was 'B' group. Thus, presence

of blood of 'A' group on the clothes of the appellant at the

time of arrest is another strong incriminating circumstance

against him.

9. On going through the evidence on record, we are of the

opinion that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond

jfoanz vkacsjdj 9 of 10

23. cri apeal 719-14.doc

reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted Abasaheb with

a sickle and caused his death. Thus, we find no merit in the

appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

10. Office to communicate this order to the appellant

through the concerned Jail Superintendent.

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

jfoanz vkacsjdj 10 of 10