Narayan Dada Bokhare vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 580 Bom

                                                   251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt
                                        1



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.251 OF 2013  


          Narayan Dada Bokhare,  
          Age : Major, Occ : Labour Work,  
          R/o. Chikhali, Tq. Shrigonda, 
          Dist. Ahmednagar. 
          (At present is in jail)        APPELLANT 
                                     [Orig. Accused]

                    VERSUS 

          The State of Maharashtra      RESPONDENT


                                ...
          Mr.S.B.Jadhav   [Appointed]   Advocate   for   the 
          appellant
          Mr.D.R.Kale, APP for the Respondent/State
                                ...

                          CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                  K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.     

Reserved on : 15.02.2017 Pronounced on : 08.03.2017

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the

Appellant-accused, challenging the judgment

and Order passed by the Additional Sessions

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

Judge-4, Ahmednagar on 29th November, 2012, in

Sessions Case No.192/2012, thereby convicting

the appellant for the offence punishable

under Section 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code. For the offence punishable under

Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the

appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- [Rs.Five Thousand], in default of

payment of fine he shall suffer R.I. for

three months.

2. The prosecution case in a nutshell

is as under:

On 15.11.2011 at about 2.05 a.m.

after midnight Ganesh Pawar lodged complaint

with the Kotwali Police Station. He reported

that his parents i.e. Arun Pawar and Sangita

(deceased) are murdered by accused Narayan.

An informant is residing in his parental

house with parents, grand-mother Aminabai,

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

sister Manisha and brother Santosh. The

accused Narayan Dada Bokhare and Siddharth

(deceased) were the servants in his house

were engaged for domestic as well as

agricultural work and started residing in the

courtyard of the informant's house and with

the family of the informant from last 6-7

months before the incident. The accused

Narayan was working in his house and looking

after the cattles and agricultural work on

daily wages.

3. On 14.11.2011, in the morning at

about 6.00 a.m. all the family members in

informant's house woke up including both the

servants. The accused Narayan and another

servant Sidharth (deceased) did work of

cleaning cattle shed, and offered fodder to

cattle. At about 10.00 a.m. the informant

himself, his father Arun Pawar and the

accused servant Narayan went to their

sugarcane land for weeding grass. The work in

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

the land was over at about 6.00 p.m. At about

8.00 p.m. at night, all the family members

and servant took their meal. At about 9.00

p.m. on said night, all of them went to bed.

One of the servant Siddharth had been asleep

on front side of an open varanda of the

house. His parents Arun and Sangita had been

asleep in backside yard, which is near to

cattle shed. Accused Narayan had been asleep

nearby the parents in cattle shed. The

informant, grand-mother Aminabai, sister

Manisha and brother Santosh had been asleep

inside of the house having grill door of iron

bars. At about 12-15 a.m. i.e. after

midnight, while asleep Ganesh, an informant,

heard some sound and woke up. He took the

view through the grill door. He saw the

accused Narayan was giving blow of wooden log

on the head of Siddharth. Head of Siddharth

had broken in the impact of bang by the

wooden log. He shouted, hence grand-mother

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

Aminabai, sister Manisha and brother Santosh

woke up. The accused Narayan noticed that the

informant, his grand mother, sister and

brother are awaken. The accused Narayan gave

threat to the informant Ganesh Pawar to come

out, and then he will finish him. An accused

pushed the grill door with an intent to open

the same. The informant, his grand mother,

sister and brother Santosh resisted attempt

of the Narayan to open the grill door, and

prevented him from opening it. The grand

mother asked the informant to awake his

parents. The informant through rear door

entered in the back yard to awake his

parents. To his surprise he saw bleeding from

the head of his father and mother. The brain

particle came out of their head. The

informant shouted and came on front side of

the house. The accused Narayan ran away. The

informant immediately made phone call to his

uncle Dnyandeo Pawar. Thereafter, he went to

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

the Kotwali Police Station, with his uncle

and lodged the FIR. The Police Station

Officer registered a Crime No.I-382/2011, for

the offences punishable under Section 302 and

506 of the Indian Penal Code against the

accused on 15.11.2011 at about 2.00 a.m.

4. The learned counsel appearing for

the appellant submits that the trial Court

erred in holding that the appellant has

committed the murder of Arun Pawar, and his

wife Sangita and the servant Siddharth. It is

submitted that the trial Court failed to

appreciate that the accused was patient of

schizophrenia [paranoid]. The prosecution has

not brought on record the evidence to prove

that, there was motive to commit crime as

against all three persons. He invites our

attention to the abnormal behaviour of the

appellant from the notes of evidence. The

learned counsel further submits that the

trial Court failed to consider that no

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

independent witness was examined by the

prosecution in support of the prosecution

case. There are several omissions and

contradictions in the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that

merely because appellant asked Arun Pawar to

pay him money, and since Arun Pawar refused

to give money and asked the appellant to wait

for 2-3 days, cannot be motive or ground for

commission of alleged offence of murder of

three persons. Therefore, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant submits that the

appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP

appearing for respondent-State invites our

attention to the evidence of the

Investigating Officer, witness Ganesh Pawar

and also medical evidence and other evidence

brought on record by the prosecution and

submits that, the prosecution has proved the

case beyond reasonable doubt against the

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

appellant, and therefore, appeal deserves no

consideration.

6. We have carefully considered the

submissions of the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant and the learned APP

appearing for respondent-State at length.

With their able assistance, we have carefully

perused the evidence of eye witnesses and

also other evidence brought on record by the

prosecution, medical evidence and also other

evidence in the nature of corroboration to

the substantive piece of evidence.

7. The First Information Report was

registered by Ganesh Pawar immediately within

two hours from the incident. In the alleged

incident, three murders were committed by the

appellant. Postmortem report of all three

deceased are on record at Exhibit-28 [1 to

3], it show injury to the head of Arun Pawar

in the nature of CLW on left temporal region

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

in the size of 6x2x1 cm. fracture to the

skull parito tempoal region and brain

particles came out. The blood hemorrhage was

noticed. The injury to the head of deceased

Sangita Pawar are avulrion of scalf from

parital to occipital region fracture to the

skull, left and right temporal region, and

brain matter came out. Injury to the head of

Siddharth swelling to the right temporal

region subdural hemorrhage of right parital

temporal region, and bleeding from right eye

sight. The cause of death given as subdural

hemorrhage, injury to the head crushing of

brain of all the three deceased. The inquest

panchanama Exh.30 [1 to 3] shows that there

were no injuries to other part of the body of

each of the deceased from neck to leg. The

injury of fracture to skull and brain part

and blood came out of the skull is the main

cause for the death of each of the three

deceased. The weapon i.e. wooden log,

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

attached in the case is enough heavy, and

even single blow by the said wooden log to

the head is sufficient to cause fracture of

skull, if the blow is given with force.

8. Upon careful reading of the evidence

brought on record, it appears that accused

asked Arun Pawar to pay him money. Arun

Pawar, deceased father of the informant,

refused to pay money, and asked the accused

to wait for 2-3 days. On the date of

incident, appellant abused the parents of the

informant. The appellant used to sleep in the

back yard near the cattle shed of the

agricultural field of the deceased. On the

relevant date, accused came as usual with the

informant at home. The father of the

informant had dinner and went to rest in the

back yard, near the cattle shed.

9. The informant Ganesh Pawar has

stated in his deposition that, his parents,

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

grand-mother Aminabai, his sister Manisha and

brother Santosh were residing in the family

home at Kedgaon link road, Ahmednagar.

Accused Narayan came few months prior to the

incident and started working as servant in

their house and agricultural field. Both the

servant Siddharth and appellant were working

in their house as well as land, and they used

to provide food and shelter to both of them.

On 14.11.2011, both of them did the house

work and also looked after the cattle as

usual. At about 10.00 a.m. along with both

the servants, an informant and his other

family members went to weed the sugarcane

crop. They came back to home at 6.00 p.m.

Family members of the informant went to bed

after taking food at about 8.00 p.m. His

parents, grand mother, sister and brother had

been asleep in the house. Accused went to

asleep in the back side room of their house.

Siddharth had been asleep on the front side

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

gate of the house. At about 12.00 to 12.15 of

midnight, he heard something dumped, and

therefore, he woke up. He saw from the grill

door of the house that, the accused Narayan

hitting on the head of another servant

Siddarth. He saw bleeding / oozing of blood

from the head of Siddharth. He shouted, then

grand-mother Aminabai, sister Manisha and

brother Santosh woke up. The accused Narayan

asked the informant to come outside the house

and threatened that, he will also be killed.

Accused Narayan tried to push the door grill

inside. At that time, the informant, his

grandmother, brother and sister hold the door

from inside so as to resist the attempt of

accused to open the door to enter inside the

house. The informant immediately opened the

rear door of the house and went to wake up

his parents. The light was on. He saw

bleeding from the head of his father and the

brain particles came out of the head of his

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

mother. Then, he turned to the front side of

the house to see the accused Narayan. Accused

was not there, and he ran away. The informant

confirmed that the accused Narayan killed his

father Arun Baban and mother - Sangita Arun

and servant Siddharth. The wooden log used by

the accused Narayan was thrown outside of the

house yard. He saw that the blood smacked to

the said wooden log and then he called his

father's brother i.e. uncle Dnyandeo by

giving telephonic message. Then he went to

the Kotwali Police Station to lodge the FIR.

The Incharge Police Officer recorded the

First Information Report.

10. It appears from his evidence that

his additional statement was recorded by the

Police on 17.11.2011. He stated that his

parents used to express dissatisfaction about

the work of Narayan. On the date of incident,

accused Narayan asked his father to pay him

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

money, however, his father refused to pay him

money and asked him to wait for 2-3 days.

The accused got angry and he was in a angry

mood through out the day.

11. We have carefully perused the cross

examination of the informant. His version in

the examination in chief remained unshattered

even in the cross examination.

12. The prosecution examined Santosh

Arun Pawar [PW2]. In his evidence, he stated

details about the manner in which incident

had taken place. He stated that, he heard the

shouting of his brother Ganesh and woke up.

He took the view through the grill door of

the house and saw that Narayan was giving the

blows of wooden log on the head of Siddharth.

The accused Narayan then stood before the

door with the wooden log. He saw bleeding

from the body of Siddharth. The lights of the

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

house were on, and he had opportunity to see

the incident of assaulting Siddharth by

accused. He further deposed that, the accused

Narayan then called his brother Ganesh to

come out of the house and threatened him

that, he will also kill him. Accused Narayan

attempted to open the door of house. His

brother Ganesh, grand mother Aminabai and

others resisted the attempt of the accused to

open the door. He further deposed that, his

brother Ganesh went in back yard and started

crying, noticing his mother and father in

seriously injured condition and brain

particles coming out of head. Then Narayan

ran away. The evidence of PW1 gets

corroboration from the evidence of PW2. Their

evidence corroborates with each other. Apart

from the evidence of aforesaid two eye

witnesses, medical evidence brought on record

by the prosecution unequivocally indicates

that, the death of deceased was homicidal.

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

There is also other evidence brought on

record by the prosecution in the nature of

corroboration to the evidence of the eye

witnesses.

13. Upon considering the evidence in its

entirety, there is no slightest doubt that

the appellant committed murder of Arun Pawar,

his wife Sangita Pawar and servant Siddharth.

The contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant that, the

appellant was suffering from schizophrenia

(paranoid) has no any force. The fact that

the accused after commission of the offence

fled away is indicative of the fact that his

mental state was alright and he was not

mentally disturbed, and knew the consequences

of such commission of ghastly crime at his

hands. Even he challenged the informant and

asked him to come out of the house.

Therefore, taking over all view of the

matter, in our considered opinion, the

251.2013 Cri.Appeal.odt

judgment and order of conviction dated

29.11.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge-4, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.192

of 2012, needs no interference, hence, appeal

stands dismissed.

14. Appellant / accused be given set off

under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.

15. We quantify Rs.7,500/- [Rupees Seven

Thousand Five Hundred only] towards fees of

Advocate Mr.S.B.Jadhav [Appointed].

              [K.K.SONAWANE]            [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                    JUDGE  
          DDC