Bombay High Court
Eknath S/O Ramdas Motghare And 2 ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 apeal490.03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.490 OF 2003
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.239 OF 2003
1) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.490 OF 2003 :
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station - Lalkhed,
Tq. Darwha, District Yavatmal. .......... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1. Eknath Ramdas Motghare,
Aged about 18 years.
2. Bablu @ Pradeep Ramesh Kawale,
Aged about 24 years,
r/o. Dabha Pahur.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:58:12 :::
2 apeal490.03.odt
3. Devanand Vishwanath Chandankhede,
Aged about 20 years.
4. Ramdas Maniram Motghare
(Appeal abated against him)
5. Chandrabhan Ramdas Motghare,
Aged about 23 years.
6. Vishwanath Kawadu Chandankhede,
Aged about 67 years.
All r/o. Kanzara, Tq. Darwha,
Distt. Yavatmal. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for the Appellant/State.
Ms N.G.Choubey, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
____________________________________________________________
****
2) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.239 OF 2003 :
1. Eknath s/o. Ramdas Motghare,
Aged about 23 years,
Occ. Labourer, r/o. Village
Kanjhara (Buzrug), P.S. and
Post Lalkhed, Tq. Darwha,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. Bablu @ Pradeep Ramesh Kawale,
Aged about 29 years, Occ. Labourer,
r/o. Village Dabha Pahur (Pahur),
Post Dabha Pahur, P.S. & Tq.
Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:58:12 :::
3 apeal490.03.odt
3. Dewanand Vishwanath Chandankhede,
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Labourer,
r/o. Village Kanjhara (Buzrug),
P.S. and Post Lalkhed, Tq.Darwha,
Distt. Yavatmal. .......... APPELLANTS
// VERSUS //
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station - Lalkhed,
Tq. Darwha, District Yavatmal. .......... RESPONDENT
___________________________________________________________
Mr.G.G.Bade, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.
____________________________________________________________
*******
Date of reserving the Judgment : 8.11.2017.
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 4.12.2017.
*******
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Appellant nos. 1 to 3 namely Eknath s/o. Ramdas
Motghare, Bablu @ Pradeep s/o. Ramesh Kawale and Dewanand s/o.
4 apeal490.03.odt
Vishwanath Chandankhede respectively in Criminal Appeal No.239
of 2003 have filed the said appeal against their conviction for the
offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code by
the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial
No.33 of 1998.
2. Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2003 is filed by the State
challenging acquittal of accused nos. 1 to 6 of the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the appellants in both the appeals, in short,
is as under :
Agricultural land of accused Vishwanath Chandankhede
was adjacent to the field of deceased Eknath Meshram. They used to
quarrel with each other on account of boundary of the field.
Accused Ramdas used to graze his goats in the field of deceased and
there was a quarrel between them on that count. House of accused
Vishwanath and accused Ramdas Motghare are by the side of house
of deceased. On 2.9.1997, on the next day of Pola (Badga), at about
5.00 p.m., deceased Eknath was standing in the courtyard of his
5 apeal490.03.odt
house. At that time, accused Eknath, Devanand and Bablu came in
front of the house of deceased. They all were under the influence of
liquor. They suddenly came close to the deceased and started beating
him with fist and kick blows. Accused Bablu and Devanand were
having sticks (tutari). Accused Eknath was having weapon like knife.
Son of deceased namely Prashant and his mother tried to intervene.
They snatched the sticks from the hands of accused. Accused Bablu
and Devanand threw sticks in the courtyard.
4. Accused Eknath and Ramdas reached there. They
instigated other accused to beat the deceased. Accused beat the
deceased. Neighbours namely Madhav Ramteke, Sudhir Meshram
and Shankar Meshram along with his brother Praful reached there.
They rescued the deceased. The deceased was taken in the
courtyard. He was not in a position to talk. Deceased had injuries on
his head, chest, back, abdomen, shoulder and face.
5. Prashant Ekanth Meshram and others took the deceased
to Dr.Rekwar at Bori. He advised them to take the deceased
immediately to Government hospital. Therefore, they took the
6 apeal490.03.odt
deceased to the Cottage hospital, Bori Arab, where the Doctor
declared him dead.
6. On 3.9.1997, report was lodged in Police Station,
Lalkhed. The dead body was sent for post mortem. The spot
panchanama etc. were carried on 3.9.1997. However, offence was
not registered. PSI Belorkar conducted inquiry and registered crime
on 6.9.1997. Further investigation was carried out by CPI Gaikwad.
He recorded statements of witnesses.
7. Complainant was not satisfied with the Police Mortem
Report (Exh.34) issued by the Medical Officer Milind Tagadpallewar
(PW-8). Again, CPI Gaikwad requested the Medical Officer,
Government Medical College, Yavatmal. Dr. Anil Batra (PW-3)
conducted post mortem on 23.9.1997, after exhuming the dead
body. After complete investigation, charge sheet was filed before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.
8. Charge was framed by the trial Court at Exh.18. Same
was read over and explained to the accused. All the accused pleaded
7 apeal490.03.odt
not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of the
appellants/accused appears to be of total denial.
9. Prosecution has examined following eight witnesses :
a. Prashant Eknath Meshram (PW-1).
b. Namdeo Suryabhanji Meshram (PW-2).
c. Dr.Anil Krishanaram Batra (PW-3).
d. Praful Eknath Meshram (PW-4).
e. Leelabai Madhao Ramteke (PW-5).
f. Sujit s/o. Ramji Meshram (PW-6).
g. Bhalchandra Krushnarao Belorkar (PW-7).
h. Dr. Milind Tagalpallewar (PW-8).
10. After hearing the prosecution and defence, the learned
trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused had no intention
to kill the deceased. But they had knowledge that, by causing such
injury, deceased would die. Therefore, the learned trial Court
convicted appellant nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under
Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted accused nos. 4
8 apeal490.03.odt
to 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, prosecution as
well as accused nos. 1 to 3 filed the appeals, as stated above.
11. Heard Mr.G.G.Bade, learned Counsel for the appellants
in Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2003. He has submitted that Dr.Milind
Tagadpallewar (PW-8) was the Medical Officer. He conducted post
mortem on 3.9.1997. As per his evidence and Post Mortem report
(Exh.34), injuries found on dead body were not sufficient to cause
death and therefore, he opined that death of deceased may not be
possible because of injuries mentioned in Column No.17 of Post
Mortem report (Exh.34).
12. Learned Counsel Mr.Bade has pointed out the evidence
of Dr. Batra (PW-3) and submitted that Dr.Batra conducted post
mortem on 23.9.1997 after exhuming the body from earth and he
issued post mortem report (Exh.64). As per his opinion " no definite
opinion about the exact cause of death could be given due to
advanced stage of decomposition." However, according to him,
probable cause of death was due to head injury as guarded opinion"
9 apeal490.03.odt
13. Learned Counsel has submitted that opinion of both the
doctors who conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased
clearly shows that the injuries found on the dead body were not
sufficient to cause death and therefore, it is clear that homicidal
death is not proved by the prosecution.
14. Learned Counsel Mr.Bade has pointed out cross-
examinations of Prashant Meshram (PW-1), Namdeo Meshram (PW-
2), Praful Meshram (PW-4), Leelabai Ramteke (PW-5) and Sujit
Meshram (PW-6) and submitted that these witnesses are not reliable.
Learned Counsel has submitted that the deceased was addicted to
liquor. As per the cross-examination of Dr.Batra, excessive drinking
of liquor may cause Liver Cirrhosis and the patient may die. At last, it
is submitted that the deceased might have died due to some other
reason. Hence, homicidal death is not proved. The oral evidence
adduced by the witnesses is full of doubt. Hence, it is submitted that
Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2003 be allowed. He also prayed to
dismiss the appeal filed by the State.
15. Heard Mr.S.S.Doifode, learned A.P.P. He has submitted
that the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
10 apeal490.03.odt
Code is proved by the prosecution against all the accused. Therefore,
the appeal filed by the State be allowed and the appeal filed by the
accused be dismissed.
16. Perused the evidence on record. First of all, we have to
see whether deceased Eknath Meshram died homicidal death. To
prove homicidal death, the evidence of expert witnesses i.e. Medical
Officers/Doctors who performed post mortem is very useful. Medical
Officer Mr.Milind Tagadpallewar (PW-8) has stated in his evidence
that, on 3.9.1997, he performed post mortem on the dead body of
Eknath Meshram. During the course of post mortem, he observed
following injuries :
" A) Abrasion over forehead left half below the hair line
size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
B) Abrasion over scalp left frontal region size 0.5 cm x
0.5 cm.
C) Contusion over right elbow swelling size 2 cm x 2
cm. No fracture seen.
D) Echymosis patch over right para umbical region
over abdomen size 1 cm x 0.5 cm."
11 apeal490.03.odt
17. Dr.Milind Tagadpallewar (PW-8) has further stated that
the injuries mentioned in Column No.17 were ante mortem injuries.
Cause of death could not be given after performing post mortem.
However, viscera was preserved. He personally prepared post
mortem report (Exh.34). He has further stated that, on 17.9.1997, he
examined the weapons i.e. bamboo sticks which were brought by
Police Constable Shivaji. On examination of the said sticks, he opined
that the injuries mentioned in Column No.17 of the post mortem
report can be caused by the sticks which were referred to him.
18. As per opinion of Dr.Tagadpallewar, death of deceased
may not be possible because of injuries mentioned in Column No.17
of Post mortem report (Exh.34). In cross-examination, he has
admitted that there was contusion but no fracture was seen.
Contusion mentioned in Injury No.3 was with swelling. There was no
injury to skull volt and skull. He did not find any puncture injury on
the dead body of deceased. Puncture wound can be caused by sticks
('tutari'). Abrasion can be caused because of friction with hard and
rough object.
12 apeal490.03.odt
19. Complainant was not satisfied with the Post Mortem
report (Exh.34) issued by the Medical Officer Dr. Milind
Tagadpallewar. Therefore, he requested for conducting post mortem
again. Accordingly, Dr.Anil Batra (PW-3) went to the field where
dead body was buried. Dead body was exhumed on 23.9.1997. He
conducted post mortem. As per his evidence, all organs were
decomposed. "No definite opinion about exact cause of death could be
given due to advanced stage of decomposition." (However, according
to him, the probable cause of death was due to head injury as
guarded opinion). In the cross-examination, he has admitted that
micro sized nodules does find if the deceased suffers with some
decease of liver prior to his death. One of the reasons of finding
micros sized nodules can be psoriasis of liver and by this decease, the
death of person takes place. Liver Cirrhosis can be caused because of
consumption of alcoholic liquor for prolonged period. He could not
give opinion whether injuries referred in column no.19 (ii) were ante
mortem or post mortem.
20. From the perusal of evidence of Dr.Milind Tagadpallewar
(PW-8) and Dr.Anil Batra (PW-3), it is clear that both the experts of
medical field have not given any definite opinion of cause of death.
13 apeal490.03.odt
Though Dr. Batra has stated that the cause of death might be head
injury (as a guarded opinion). But Dr.Tagadpallewar has stated in his
evidence that there was no injury to skull volt and skull. He did not
find any puncture injury on the dead body. This itself shows that
there was no any head injury. Moreover, Dr.Milind Tagadpallewar
(PW-8) was the first Medical Officer who conducted post mortem on
the next day of the incident i.e. on 3.9.1997. As per his observation,
at the time of post mortem, he found only abrasion, contusion etc.
He noted only four minor injuries. As per his opinion, those injuries
were not sufficient to cause death. Hence, it is clear from the
evidence of both medical experts namely Dr.Tagadpallewar and
Dr.Batra that death of deceased Eknath Meshram was not homicidal
death.
21. Suggestions were given to other witnesses that deceased
was addicted to liquor and therefore, at the time of incident, he fell
down under the influence of liquor and died. As per evidence of Dr.
Batra, if any person consumes alcohol/liquor for a long time, decease
like Liver Cirrhosis may cause. Therefore, there may be other
decease/reason for the death of deceased. Hence, prosecution has
14 apeal490.03.odt
utterly failed to prove that the deceased died due to beating by the
accused.
22. Oral evidence of Namdeo Meshram (PW-2), Praful
Meshram (PW-4) and Leelabai Ramteke (PW-5) is not reliable.
Prashant Meshram (PW-1) made much more
exaggerations/improvements in his evidence. He has stated that one
of the accused namely Vishwanath was having knife in his hand and
he gave blow of knife to the deceased. He has further stated that the
accused threw that knife on the spot of incident/courtyard. It is
pertinent to note that the knife was not seized by the Investigating
Officer. Moreover, both the doctors have not seen any stab injury on
the dead body of deceased.
23. As per the evidence of Prashant Meshram (PW-1), the
deceased sustained injury to his head, chest, back, abdomen, face
etc. But those injuries were not found at the time of post mortem.
Material omissions are brought on record in his cross-examination.
Therefore, evidence of this witness is not reliable.
15 apeal490.03.odt
24. Namdeo Meshram (PW-2) was the brother of deceased.
He was residing at Nagpur. He was informed about the incident in
the night and he arrived at village Kanzara on 3.9.1997 and after his
advice, report was lodged. Therefore, this witness has no any
personal knowledge. All his evidence is hearsay evidence. Therefore,
it is not helpful to the prosecution.
25. Praful Meshram (PW-4) has stated in his evidence that
he was grazing cattle on the day of incident when he came to know
about the beating by accused. Then he rushed to his house. His
father was lying. His evidence itself shows that when he reached to
the spot of incident, the deceased was lying there. Therefore, his
evidence is not reliable.
26. Evidence of other witnesses namely Leelabai Ramteke
(PW5) and Sujit Meshram (PW-6) is also on the same footing. All
the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution is of the nearest
relatives of deceased. They have made much more exaggerations in
their evidence. Sujit Meshram (PW-6) has gone to the extent of
saying before the Court that the fact of quarrel was made known to
him by deceased Eknath Meshram. He has further admitted that
16 apeal490.03.odt
whatever statement he made before the Court was made by him after
narrating the said fact by deceased Ekanth to him. It is pertinent to
note that when this witness reached to the spot of incident, quarrel
was going on. The deceased was lying. As per evidence of Prashant
Meshram (PW-1) and other witnesses, deceased was unconscious.
Therefore, it is hard to believe that the deceased narrated the
incident to Sujit Meshram (PW-6).
27. Oral evidence adduced by prosecution is not reliable
because the witnesses have made much more improvements. They
are interested witnesses. All they are relatives of deceased. Prashant
Meshram (PW-1), Praful Meshram (PW-4) and Sujit Meshram (PW-
6) deposed contradictory to each other. Prashant Meshram (PW-1)
has stated that he sustained injury on his left cheek and on his right
hand fingers. But no any Medical Certificate is proved by the
prosecution to show any injury sustained by him.
28. Registration of crime against the accused persons is also
doubtful. As per report lodged by Prashant Meshram PW-1 (Exh.64),
on the very next day i.e. on 3.9.1997, report was lodged to Police
Station, Lalkhed. But crime was not registered on the same day.
17 apeal490.03.odt
Printed F.I.R. is at Exh.81. It shows that information was received on
6.9.1997 and crime was registered on the said information on
6.9.1997.
29. Evidence of Investigating Officer Bhalchandra Belorkar
(PW-7) is also doubtful. He has stated in his evidence that he
registered a Marg and he made an inquiry. It is pertinent to note that
when specific allegations were made by the complainant in the
report dt.3.9.1997, then there was no any need for him to register
Marg. He registered the crime against accused persons on 3.9.1997.
As per his evidence, he seized the sticks from the wife of deceased.
She gave all the stick from her house. Therefore, recovery is also
doubtful. Bhalchandra Belorkar (PW-7) has stated in his evidence
that he did not inquire regarding the knife. He seized only sticks.
Ramabai (wife of deceased) produced the said sticks. He did not
find any blood stains on the seized stick at the time of seizure
panchanama. Interestingly, the C.A. Report shows blood stain on one
of the seized sticks. All these creates doubt about the investigation by
Bhalchandra Belorkar (PW-7) and later investigation by CPI
Gaikwad.
18 apeal490.03.odt
30. PSI Belorkar (PW-7) has further stated that he obtained
opinion of Dr.Batra by sending sticks. It was mentioned in the
opinion of Dr. Batra that the injuries mentioned in Col. No.17 of Post
mortem report cannot be caused by sticks and they are post mortem
injuries. Evidence of Dr.Milind Tagadpallewar (PW-8) clearly shows
that he examined the sticks. As per his opinion, death of deceased
may not be possible because of the injuries mentioned in Column
No.17.
31. Prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased died
homicidal death and the accused persons were author of crime.
Medical evidence of Dr.Anil Batra (PW-3) and Dr.Tagadpallewar
(PW-8) clearly shows that the deceased has not died homicidal
death. Oral evidence adduced by Namdeo Meshram (PW-2), Dr. Anil
Batra (PW-3), Praful Meshram (PW-4), Leelabai Ramteke (PW-5)
and Sujit Meshram (PW-6) are not reliable due to much more
improvements in their evidence. Material omissions are brought on
record.
32. Investigation by Bhalchandra Belorkar (PW-7) and CPI
Gaikwad is also doubtful. As per evidence Prashant Meshram (PW-
19 apeal490.03.odt
1), report was lodged on 3.9.1997, but F.I.R. Exh.81 clearly shows
that the information was received on 6.9.1997. Crime was registered
on 6.9.1997; whereas spot panchanama etc. were prepared on
3.9.1997. The weapons were seized from the house of deceased
itself. The weapons were not sealed. As per the evidence of PSI
Bhalchandra Belorkar (PW-7), he had not seen any blood stain on
any of the sticks. Whereas C.A. Reports show that blood stain on one
of the sticks. All these evidence creates doubt. Prosecution has
miserably failed to prove guilt of accused. Learned trial Court has not
taken into consideration the evidence on record. He has failed to
consider the medical evidence of Dr. Anil Batra (PW-3) and
Dr.Milind Tagadpallewar (PW-8) and wrongly convicted accused
nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the
Indian Penal Code. Hence, we pass the following order.
// ORDER //
Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2003 filed by the
State is hereby dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2003 filed by the
appellants/accused is hereby allowed.
20 apeal490.03.odt
Impugned Judgment is hereby quashed and
set aside.
Appellant Nos.1 to 3 namely Eknath s/o.
Ramdas Motghare, Bablu @ Pradeep Ramesh Kawale,
Dewanand Vishwanath Chandankhede are hereby
acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.302 r/w.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to
appellant nos. 1 to 3.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the
trial Court.
Fees of Ms N.S.Choubey, learned Counsel for
the Respondents in Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2003 is
quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
21 apeal490.03.odt
