Bombay High Court
Madhav Haribhau Munjal, C.No. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 November, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
(1) cri appeal 309 13odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2013
Madhav S/o Haribhau Munjal,
Age: 29 years, Occ.: NIL,
R/o Mardi, Taluka - Ambad,
District Jalna.(At present Harsool Jail) ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
(Copy to be served on P.P. High Court of
Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad.)
-----
Mr. A.K. Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.D.R. Kale, APP for respondent-state.
-----
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 03.11.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.11.2017
...
JUDGMENT: (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.)
. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Code, by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment and
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.
104/2012 on 31.07.2013 thereby convicting him for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:13 :::
(2) cri appeal 309 13odt
him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default to suffer
R.I. for three years. For the sake of avoiding confusion we are referring
to the parties and witnesses and the exhibits according to their status in
the trial Court.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is to the effect that
deceased Pralhad was the father of the informant Sachin [P.W.-1]. The
accused is the son of Haribhau who happens to be the brother of Pralhad.
At the time of the marriage of Haribhau's daughter Panchphula, Pralhad
had lent him Rs. 2,50,000/-. Similarly, once when the accused had
consumed poison Pralhad had lent Haribhau Rs. 70,000/- for his medical
treatment. Unfortunately later on Haribhau committed suicide and
therefore Pralhad started demanding the money back from the accused.
For this reason the accused was annoyed with Pralhad.
3. According to the prosecution on 08.04.2012 Pralhad along
with other villagers was sitting on a platform near Maruti Temple at
village Mardi. The accused arrived there with a sword in his hand [Article
No. 8] and gave blow of the sword on the head of Pralhad who died
instantly and the dead body was lying in pool of blood. Prabhakar,
another paternal uncle of the informant Sachin [P.W.-1] telephonically
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:13 :::
(3) cri appeal 309 13odt
informed him about the incident at about 1.20 p.m. so he rushed to the
spot and found that the dead body of his father was lying in a pool of
blood near the platform situated in the vicinity of the Maruti Temple.
Rajendra [CW-1], Parasram [CW-2], Munaf [CW-3], Bhaskar [CW-4],
Datta [CW-5] and Kailash [CW-6] and Prabhakar all told him that the
accused had assaulted his father with a sword, of which his father
Pralhad died. Sachin [P.W.1] went to the police station and lodged a
report [Exhibit-1] and Crime No. 77/2012 was registered under Section
302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 r/w 3 of
the Arms Act. The investigation was handed over to P.I. Gajanan Jaibhai
[P.W.-9].
4. Mr. Gajanan Jaibhai [P.W.-9] reached the spot, conducted the
panchnama of the scene of the offence [Exhibit.27] and inquest was was
done as per the panchnama [Exhibit.40]. The post-mortem examination
was performed by Dr. Anuradha Suryakant Male [P.W.-2]. She found
following injuries:
"1] Chop wound V shaped over head left side
extending from left eye brow to upper part of occipital
region involving uppar part of left ear pinna size 24 cm x
3.5 cm x cavity deep reddish in colour. Some brain
matter missing. Evidence of clean cut over underlying
bones prental, temporal parietal and occipital bones
corresponding to injury.
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:13 :::
(4) cri appeal 309 13odt
2] Chop wound over head left side from mid parietal
region to upper part of occipital region 10 cm x 3 cm x
cavity deep. Evidence of clean cut over underlying bones
parietal and occipital corresponding to injury. Injury was
reddish in colour.
3] Chop wound over left hand dorsal aspect
extending from upper part of left hand to middle phalanx
of middle finger of size 9 cm x 4 cm x bone deep raddish
in colour. Evidence of fracture of plaximal phalanx of
middle finger of left hand.
4] Contused lacerated wound to left hand dorsal
aspect lateral side 4 x 21/2 x 11/2 cm reddish in colour
oblique.
5] Contused lacerated wound to right leg lower part
3 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. Reddish in colour medial aspect.
6] Contused lacerated wound to right leg medial
aspect lower part 5 x 1 1/2 x 11/2 cm, reddish in colour
oblique."
She prepared postmortem examination notes [Exhibit-15]. She
opined that Pralhad had died due to head injuries associated with
fracture of proximal Phalanx of Middle finger of left hand. It is the
prosecution case that while in the police custody the accused discovered
blood-stained sword [Article no.8] which was seized under memorandum
statement and the panchnama [Exhibit.32]. The muddemal articles were
sent for chemical analysis. Statements of the witnesses were recorded
and in due course the accused was chargesheeted before the Court of
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:13 :::
(5) cri appeal 309 13odt
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambad who committed the case to the
Sessions Court, Jalna.
5. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge and recorded
the plea. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution led its
evidence. The defence of the accused is of total denial.
6. It is necessary to note here that during the course of trial the
learned Sessions Judge by invoking the powers under Section 311 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and by passing a speaking order on the
charge-sheet [Exhibit-1] on 01.07.2013 caused the persons who were
cited in the F.I.R. [Exhibit-15], as were present at the time of incident
but who were not examined by the prosecution, to be examined namely
Rajendra [CW-1], Parasram [CW-2], Munaf [CW-3], Bhaskar [CW-4],
Datta [CW-5], Kailas [CW-6]. The accused also examined his wife
Manisha [DW-1]. It is necessary to note here that it appears that no
objection was raised for such a course being followed by the Sessions
Judge when these court witnesses were being examined. On the
contrary, without any demur they were cross-examined on behalf of the
accused.
7. At the end, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:13 :::
(6) cri appeal 309 13odt
judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned
herein-above. Hence this appeal.
8. We have heard the learned Advocate Mr. A.B. Bhosale for the
accused. The learned Advocate submitted that the conclusion drawn by
the learned Sessions Judge is perverse, drawn by resorting to surmises
and conjectures. The learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the
evidence properly. He has ignored the material inconsistencies in the
depositions of the witnesses. The prosecution witnesses and the court
witnesses were not worthy of credence. No independent witness has
been examined. The conduct of the prosecution witnesses was unnatural.
The conduct of the Court witnesses who were stated to be present at the
scene was wholly unnatural as none of them tried to accost the accused.
Some witnesses have simply stated about the accused having straight
way arrived at the scene and directly assaulted deceased Pralhad, where
as some witnesses have stated about a fighting having been ensued
between the accused and Pralhad. The panch on the discovery
panchnama [Exhibit-27] is habitual panch and the circumstances of such
discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has not been
properly established. Thus, the learned Advocate prayed to allow the
appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:13 :::
(7) cri appeal 309 13odt
9. The learned A.P.P. on the other hand strenuously supported
the impugned judgment and order. According to the learned A.P.P. the
Sessions Judge has rightly invoked the powers vested in him under
Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has played an active
role in conducting the trial. Therefore, no fault can be found with such
initiative taken by him. The learned A.P.P. also pointed out that the
defence has miserably failed to shake the testimonies of the court
witnesses and has failed to bring out any oblique intention on their part
to implicate the accused falsely. Thus, according to the learned A.P.P. the
accused has been rightly convicted and appropriately sentenced by the
impugned judgment and order.
10. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and
the entire evidence led before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned
Sessions Judge has systematically considered all the circumstances and
the testimonies and has come to a right conclusion in convicting and
sentencing the accused. To begin with, it is apparent that Dr. Anuradha
Suryakant Male [P.W.-2] who has performed the postmortem examination
as per the Post Mortem notes [Exhibit-15] has stated and explained
about the injuries noticed by her on the dead body and has also opined
that all these injuries were ante mortem and the deceased had died due
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:13 :::
(8) cri appeal 309 13odt
to head injuries associated fracture with proximal phalanx of middle
finger of left hand. Her evidence is duly corroborated by the postmortem
notes recorded during the course of said examination. Lastly when the
sword [Article no.8] was shown to her, she has also opined that the
injury nos. 1 to 3 (supra) were possible by such weapon. She has
specifically stated that these injuries could have been caused by sharp
edged part of the sword. A careful perusal of her cross-examination
would reveal that the defence has not been able to extract anything so as
to discredit her opinion. In view of such concrete evidence, the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly concluded about death of Pralhad being
homicidal one.
11. Coming to the ocular testimonies of witnesses, the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly found that Sachin [P.W.-1] though is an
informant was not himself present at the time of the occurrence of the
incident and therefore his evidence cannot be considered to ascertain
what had transpired during the incident. The prosecution did examine
Narayan [P.W.-6] by citing him as an eye witness. He happens to be the
brother of the deceased Pralhad and paternal uncle of the informant
Sachin (P.W.-1) as well as the accused. Though Narayan [P.W.-6] has
stated about the episode as if he was personally present there, Sachin
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:13 :::
(9) cri appeal 309 13odt
[P.W.-1] has stated that Narayan [P.W.-6] had arrived at the spot after he
reached there. In view of such material contradiction the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly discredited the testimony of Narayan [P.W.-6].
Incidentally it is also necessary to note that in fact statement of Narayan
[P.W.-6] was not recorded by the Investigating Officer and he had
refused to give any statement to police and this was one more reason to
discard his testimony.
12. It seems that having found that the informant Sachin [P.W.-1]
and Narayan [P.W.6] both cited as prime witnesses were of no help in
reaching to truth, the learned Sessions Judge has invoked the powers
under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has passed
following order :
"ORDER BELOW EXH. 1
OF SESSION CASE NO. 104/2012.
I have heard final arguments in this matter. It has
been brought to my notice that the informant filed the
report contending therein that when his father was sitting
on the platform near Maruti Temple the accused assaulted
him with sword and killed him. It has come in the
evidence that there were near about 25 persons sitting in
platform. However, the prosecution has examined PW
no.6 Mr. Narayan who is the brother of the deceased. He
claims that he witnessed the incident while occurring.
However, the informant states that when he received a
phone call, he went to the scene of offence and saw the
dead body of his father was lying on road near the platform
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:13 :::
( 10 ) cri appeal 309 13odt
of Maruti Temple. He has further stated that his uncle
Narayan came later on. In these circumstances, I find that
the prosecution was required to examine other witnesses.
For the best reasons known to the prosecution, neither any
independent witness has been examined nor the learned
Prosecutor has filed any pursish as to why he did not
examine any of the independent eye witness in this case.
2. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
empowers the court to summon any person as a witness or
examine any person in attendance though not examined as
a witness or recall and re-examine any person already
examined at any stage of the enquiry, trial or other
proceeding if his evidence appears to the Court to be
essential to the just decision of the case.
3. The informant in his report filed below exh. 25 had
named Rajendra Asaram Munjal, Parasram Bhimrao Raut,
Munaf Zahoorkhan Pathan, Bhaskar Yamaji Bansode,
Datta Rangnath Ekhande, Prabhhakar Malharrao Munjal,
Kilas Bhaktaji Munjal. Hence, it is necessary to examine
these witnesses as Court witnesses. Hence, the following
order.
ORDER
Issue summons to Rajendra Asaram Munjal,
Parasram Bhimrao Raut, Munaf Zahoorkhan Pathan,
Bhaskar Yamaji Bansode, Datta Rangnath Ekhande,
Prabhhakar Malharrao Munjal, Kilas Bhaktaji Munjal as
Court witnesses.
Dt. 1.7.13.
(B.D. Kapadnis)
Sessions Judge, Jalna."
In pursuance of such order the learned Sessions Judge proceeded
to examine few more witnesses as court witnesses, whose names were
appearing in the report filed by the informant Sachin [P.W.-1]. Obviously
the Sessions Judge does have the power under Section 311 of the Code
( 11 ) cri appeal 309 13odt
of Criminal Procedure to summon any person as a witness though not
summoned as witness if his evidence appears to him to be essential to
the just decision of the case. A careful perusal of the F.I.R. [Exhibit-25]
lodged on the very date of the incident within 2 to 3 hours specifically
mentions that Rajendra [CW-1], Parasram [CW-2], Munaf [CW-3],
Bhaskar [CW-4], Datta [CW-5], Kailash [CW-6] and Prabhakar were
present at the scene of the offence and they all unanimously told him
that his father Pralhad and all of them were chit-chatting by sitting on
the platform when the accused arrived there with sword and assaulted
Pralhad in their presence and his father had died on the spot. It is thus
apparent that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that all these
court witnesses are got up witnesses. In fact, the learned Sessions
Judge has correctly invoked the powers under Section 311 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in summoning these persons. There is also no room
to discard the statement in the F.I.R. [Exhibit-25] as an after thought,
since it has been lodged as soon as possible as it can be, after the
occurrence of the incident. There was no time lag for any concoction.
We therefore see no reason to question the initiative taken by the
learned Sessions Judge in summoning and examining them as court
witnesses.
( 12 ) cri appeal 309 13odt
13. In this respect, it is also necessary to note that as is
mentioned above no objection was raised on behalf of the accused when
the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to examine these court witnesses.
Under these circumstances, we find no illegality in following such
recourse.
14. Now turning to the testimonies of these court witnesses
Rajendra [CW-1] has stated that at the time of incident he was sitting on
the platform along with Pralhad Parasram [CW-2], Munaf [CW-3],
Bhaskar [CW-4], Datta [CW-5] Prabhakar and Kailash [CW-6]. The
accused arrived there at 12.00 to 12.30 p.m. Fighting ensued between
Pralhad and accused, and when Pralhad tried to run away he fell on the
ground. The accused then gave blow of sword on the head of Pralhad. It
is pertinent to note that when his examination-in-chief was recorded till
this extent he started feeling giddiness and requested for an
adjournment. However, again he changed his request and requested for
recording his evidence on that day itself and the further cross-
examination on behalf of the accused was conducted by offering him
sitting arrangement. It is pertinent to note here that demeanor of this
witness was noticed by the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating his
testimony. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly considered this aspect
( 13 ) cri appeal 309 13odt
to demonstrate that if the witness was even afraid to record his
testimony it was not unnatural for him not to have intervened and
accosted the accused when the latter was assaulting Pralhad. The
learned Sessions Judge had the appropriate opportunity to note the
demeanor of the witnesses and to discard the argument of the defence to
the effect that had he been really present at the scene of the offence he
would have certainly intervened when a quarrel had ensued.
15. Parasram [CW-2] has also narrated about the incident by
stating himself to be an eye witness. True it is that he has erred when
he said that blow of sword was given on the head as well as shoulder of
Pralhad but in fact there is no injury to the shoulder. However, simply on
the basis of such error, one cannot readily discard his testimony, for
nothing could be extracted during his cross-examination to doubt his
presence on the scene.
16. Similarly Munaf [CW-3] and Bhaskar [CW-5] have also
supported the prosecution by saying that they were present at the scene
near the Maruti Temple and the accused having arrived there and
assaulted Pralhad with a sword. True it is that few other court witnesses
Bhaskar [CW-4] and Kailash [CW-6] had denied to have witnessed the
( 14 ) cri appeal 309 13odt
incident. It is also true that there has been a variance in the deposition
of these court witnesses who have supported the prosecution in as much
as some of them have stated about fighting having been ensued between
Pralhad and accused initially and later on the accused having assaulted
Pralhad. Whereas few other witnesses have simply stated about the
accused having straightway after arrival at the scene assaulted Pralhad.
However simply on the basis of this isolated inconsistency, one cannot
discard their testimonies outrightly when these witnesses have no axe to
grind in the matter and are independent and when nothing could be
extracted to disbelieve their testimonies. In these circumstances we are
convinced that the testimonies of these witnesses can be safely relied
upon, the learned Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated their
testimonies and has reached to a correct conclusion in accepting them to
the extent that the accused had assaulted Pralhad with sword. Thus,
there is ample, cogent reliable and direct evidence to prove that the
accused did assault Pralhad with the sword and as a result he died on the
spot due to head injury.
17. In fact, in view of such direct and reliable testimonies, the
other circumstances like motive and discovery are not very important.
Still, there is ample material to show that the accused had the motive to
( 15 ) cri appeal 309 13odt
kill Pralhad inasmuch as Pralhad had lent money to his father Haribhau
and was demanding it back. Narayan [P.W.-6] and Parasram [CW-2]
have both corroborated this fact. In additiion, Parasram [CW-2] had
stated that there was also dispute between deceased Pralhad and
accused on the ground of agricultural land. During the examination of
the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he has
stated about there being such a dispute on the ground of agricultural
land and these circumstances would be sufficient to attribute that there
was strong motive for the accused to kill Pralhad.
18. As regards discovery of the sword [Article no.8] by the
accused is concerned, Satish [P.W.-5] is the panch who has stated about
the accused having given a statement in his presence agreeing to
discover the sword and subsequent discovery of the sword [Article no.8]
by him from his house and its seizure in his presence as per the
panchnama. True it is that Satish [P.W.-5] has admitted to be a stock
witness and the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in believing
his testimony as a panch on the memorandum statement [Exhibit-32]
and the seizure panchnama [Exhibit-33]. The learned Sessions Judge
has relied upon the ratio laid down in the case of State (N.C.T. Delhi)
Vs. Navjot Sandhu; AIR 2005 SC 3820 holding that even the panchas
( 16 ) cri appeal 309 13odt
are not necessary for recording testimony under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that in view of
such principle, the testimony of the Investigating Officer Gajanan Jaibhai
[P.W.-9] being of impeccable character can easily be accepted and has
accepted such circumstance of discovery under Section 27. Being the
Investigating Officer, in our view it would be highly risky to rely upon sole
testimony of the Investigating Officer and it would be safe to look for
corroboration in the form of testimony of the panch. Therefore, in our
view when the panch Satish [P.W.-5] is a stock panch witness and the
only evidence of the Investigating Officer Gajanan Jaibhai [P.W.- 9] is
there, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have accepted their
testimonies to the extent of discovery of the weapon.
19. Be that as it may, since we are holding that the evidence is
not sufficient to believe the circumstance of recovery of the sword
[Article no.8] under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, further
scrutiny about the blood of group 'O' was found on the blade of the
sword [Article no.8] which tallies with the blood group of the deceased is
inconsequential.
20. In the result, though the prosecution has failed to establish
( 17 ) cri appeal 309 13odt
the circumstance, of discovery which is admissible under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act and the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error
in holding otherwise, there is ample direct ocular evidence discussed
herein above to conclude that the accused has committed murder of
Pralhad. Consequently, we find no hesitation in concurring with the
finding and conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting
and sentencing the accused by the impugned order. We see no sufficient
and cogent reason to take a different view. The appeal therefore fails.
21. The appeal is dismissed.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S. S. SHINDE, J.]
KAKADE
