Naresh S/O Devila Patle (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 479 Bom

                                      1                APEAL485-15.odt          




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.485/2015
                                  ...

Naresh Devilal Patle,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o Dhanori, Tahsil &
District Gondia.                              ..             APPELLANT


                               .. Versus ..


The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Gangazhari,District Gondia.                   ..            RESPONDENT




Mr. R.P. Thote, Advocate (Appointed) for Appellant.
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

                               ....


              CORAM : B.R. Gavai & Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.

DATED : March 07, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J. )

1. The accused has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for

committing murder of his wife Yogeshwari, his sister-in-law

Puneshwari and his brother-in-law Manoj and sentenced to

2 APEAL485-15.odt

suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in

default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for each of

the murders. He has also been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for

attempt to commit murder of his father-in-law Ramchandra and

sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- , in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six

months. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and

sentence, the appellant challenges the judgment and order

dated 18.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Gondia.

2. The prosecution story as could be gathered from the

material placed on record is thus:-

PW2 Ramchandra is a first informant. He had two

daughters and one son Manoj. His daughter Yogeshwari was

married to accused Naresh in the year 2010. Puneshwari and

Manoj were unmarried. Manoj was working as a driver. On

2.8.2012 accused and Yogeshwari had come to the house of

PW2 Ramchandra on the occasion of Rakhi festival and staying

in the house of PW2 Ramchandra.

On 4.8.2012 his daughter Yogeshwari told PW2 that

the accused was harassing her and demanding Rs.50,000/-

3 APEAL485-15.odt

from her. PW2 told the accused that he was not in a position to

arrange for money every time and he should not harass his

daughter. Thereafter he and his wife left the house for Chota

Gondia for attending the post funeral rituals of his relative.

Since it was raining, he asked his son Manoj to drop his wife by

four wheeler and accordingly he dropped his wife to Murri

Chowk and went for his work. After his wife came at Murri

Chowk, they proceeded towards Chota Gondia on a motorcycle.

At about 4.15 p.m. PW2 Ramchandra received a

phone of PW5 Pintu Yele from the phone of PW4 Sumit Patle

asking him to return to the village immediately. As such he

rushed to the village alone by motorcycle. When he came near

his house, near the shop of Ratan Baghele the accused was

moving the keys of his house by his fingers and he said that

"Ye Teri Gharki Chabi Le Our Jake Dekh Le Tere Tino Bacchoka

Dher Gira Diya Hamesha Ka Kissa Khatma kar Diya"

Accordingly he took the keys, opened the lock and saw the

children in the pool of blood in the inner side room of his

house. He also noticed the axe, iron rod and an iron pipe in the

room having blood stains over it.

PW2, therefore, accosted the accused as to what he

has done. The accused picked up the axe and came to assault

him. However, in order to save himself, he ran from the

4 APEAL485-15.odt

backside door of his house. He met Sumit Patle. Accordingly

they rushed to the house of Police Patil to narrate the incident.

He went to the Police Station and lodged the report. On the

basis of the oral report, the investigation was set into motion.

The accused was beaten by the villagers after the crime and he

was taken into custody by the Police Patil himself. He was

arrested by Police and sent for medical treatment. At the

conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed

in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Gondia. Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned

Sessions Judge, same came to be committed to the learned

Sessions Judge, Gondia.

3. The charge was framed against the accused below

Exh.4 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of

the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried. He took the plea of alibi and stated that he was

falsely implicated. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned

trial Judge passed the order of conviction and sentenced the

appellant as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the present

appeal.

4. Mr. Thote, the learned counsel for the appellant

5 APEAL485-15.odt

submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the

case beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the testimony

of PW4 Sumit, who claimed to be an eyewitness, cannot be

believed. He submits that his conduct was totally unnatural.

He submits that after seeing the incident, he has not informed

to anyone and as such the conviction on the basis of his

testimony is not sustainable.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the

contrary submits that the testimony of PW4 Sumit- eyewitness

is corroborated by all other witnesses like PW2 Ramchandra,

PW3 Nihalchand - Police Patil, PW5 Ghanshyam @ Pintu. The

learned APP further submits that there is also an extra judicial

confession made by the accused to PW7 Shivshankar, who was

his friend. He, therefore, submits that the order of conviction

warrants no interference.

6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we

have scrutinised the entire evidence on the record.

7. PW4 Sumit is a friend of deceased Manoj. Deceased

Manoj was working as a driver on a school van whereas PW4

6 APEAL485-15.odt

was working as a conductor on the said van. He states in his

evidence that on the day of the incident they had picked up the

students from their houses and in the evening dropped them to

their houses. At around 1.45 hours, he had accompanied

Manoj to his house. At that time his parents, as well as sisters

were present in the house. Accused Naresh was also present.

On that day parents of Manoj were supposed to go to Chota

Gondia for attending the Punyatithi programme of some

relative. As it was raining, they dropped the mother of Manoj

at Murri Chowk in their van. They were followed by father of

Manoj on motorcycle. Thereafter they again went to school to

collect some boys and dropped them to their respective

houses. Manoj dropped PW4 at his house and went to his

house at around 3.30 p.m. Within 15 minutes, he received

phone of Manoj who informed that the vehicle has been

jammed in his courtyard and requested to come there. After

some time, he went to the house of Manoj by his motorcycle.

He did not see anybody near the vehicle and as such he went

towards the house of Manoj by giving call in his name. In the

first room, he did not find anybody.

8. He further states that he went upto the door of inner

side room and saw accused assaulting Manoj by an axe. At

7 APEAL485-15.odt

that time he saw Manoj falling on the ground facing sky and

the blood was oozing from his body. At that time accused

Naresh also called him, however, due to apprehension he ran

away from the spot. He went to the house of his friend PW5

Ghanshyam Yele and informed him about the incident.

Thereafter he collected his motorcycle and along with

Ghanshyam, went towards the chowk. From his mobile,

Ghanshyam called the father of Manoj and asked him to return

to the village immediately. After some time father of Manoj

returned to the village and they followed him to their house.

Father of Manoj noticed that the house was locked. That time

accused Naresh Patle was present in the courtyard. Father of

Manoj demanded keys from accused. At that time accused

was revolving the keys in his fingers and said to father of Manoj

that "Tere Bachhonka Dher Gira Diya Hamesha Ka Kissa

Khatma Kar Diya Ye Le Chabi Our Dekh Le ". Thereafter the

father of Manoj opened the lock and entered the house.

Naresh also followed him. After some time, they saw father of

Manoj coming out from the backside door of the house by

running. This witness and Ghanshyam were standing in the

courtyard. Father of Manoj told them that Naresh also followed

him by holding axe with intention to kill him. He also told them

that his children are found dead in the room. Thereafter he

8 APEAL485-15.odt

accompanied father of Manoj to the house of Police Patil and

informed the incident to Police Patil. They all returned to the

spot of incident. Thereafter father of Manoj told this witness to

bring mother of Manoj. Accordingly he went to Chota Gondia

to collect mother of Manoj on his motorcycle. He has also

given details about the mobile number of himself as well as the

mobile number of Manoj.

9. This witness has been thoroughly cross-examined. In

spite of thorough cross-examination, insofar as his testimony

with regard to he seeing the accused assaulting the deceased

Manoj has remained unshattered.

10. It could further be seen that the witness appears to

be a natural witness. If he wanted to depose falsely, he could

have given an exaggerated version of he seeing assault on all

the three. However, he has deposed only regarding he seeing

the accused assaulting the deceased Manoj. His conduct is

sought to be attacked. We do not find anything unnatural in his

conduct. On the contrary immediately after seeing the

incident, he had informed PW5 Ghanshyam who in turn

informed PW2 Ramchandra.

9 APEAL485-15.odt

11. The testimony of PW4 Sumit is also corroborated by

the testimony of other witnesses. PW5 Ghanshyam narrates

about Sumit Patle coming to his house, they going towards the

Hanuman Chowk after collecting the motorcycle, thereafter he

calling Mamaji (PW2) by the phone of Sumit and asking him to

return the village as early as possible, Mamaji returning to the

village, proceeding towards the house and the utterances of

Naresh to PW2.

12. The testimony of PW3 Nihalchand- Police Patil also

corroborates the version of PW4 and PW5. PW3 states about

PW2 Ramchandra and PW4 Sumit coming to his house and

informing him about the incident. We find that the testimony

of PW4 Sumit - eyewitness, is duly corroborated by the

testimony of PW2 Ramchandra, PW3 Nihalchand and PW5

Ghanshyam.

13. Apart from that the prosecution has also brought on

record the extra judicial confession made by the accused to

several witnesses. PW7 Shivshankar is the friend of the

accused. He states that he had received a call from mobile

no.9623288306. At that time Naresh informed him that he had

killed his wife, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. When he asked

10 APEAL485-15.odt

as to why he had done so, he replied that he was angry. He

states that he did not believe on this talk and after saying so,

accused gave him one number and told him that it is the

number of his father-in-law and he may get it confirmed from

him. After some time he called the said number, however, the

person on the other side talked something and cut-off the

phone. His testimony is sought to be assailed on the ground

that his statement is recorded belatedly. However, he has

given an explanation in his deposition that though the Police

had visited twice to the hotel where he was working, he was

not on duty and as such his statement could not be recorded.

He has stated that on the third occasion when the Police

came, his statement was recorded.

14. Apart from that there is extra judicial confession

given by accused to PW2 and PW3. The extra judicial

confession given to Police Patil- PW3 is also corroborated by

the evidence of PW5 Ghanshyam as well as PW6 Ashish. In the

present case we are using the extra judicial confession only as

corroborative piece of evidence to fortify the case of the

prosecution which in our view is duly proved by the ocular

testimony of PW4, who is an eyewitness and whose evidence is

duly corroborated by PW2 Ramchandra, PW3 Nihalchand and

11 APEAL485-15.odt

PW6 Ashish.

15. Insofar as the defence witness is concerned, though

he has stated in his evidence that on the day of the incident

Naresh had come to Gondia, his cross-examination would

reveal that he has deposed only in order to help the accused.

16. The another thing to be noted is that the accused

who was beaten by the villagers, was immediately taken into

custody by the Police Patil who in turn handed over the custody

to the investigating officer. We, therefore, find that the

prosecution has proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt

and no interference is warranted in the present appeal.

17. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Fees

payable to the learned counsel appointed for the appellant are

quantified at Rs.5000/-.

      (Kum. Indira Jain, J. )             (B.R. Gavai, J.)
                                 ...


halwai/p.s.