Bombay High Court
Amit Bansi Chavan And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2017
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
201_apeal_805_2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2015
Amit Bansi Chavan
Deepak Vitthal Chavan ...Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
...
Mr. Kuldeep Patil for the Appellants.
Mr. Rajan Salvi, APP for the Respondent -State.
CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 21/09/2017
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 13/10/2017
JUDGMENT :-
The Appellants herein, the original accused in Sessions Case
No.486 of 2009, have challenged the judgment and order dated 3rd
August, 2015 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Pune has convicted
them for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 452 r/w. 34 of
the IPC. The Appellants, hereinafter referred to as the accused, have
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and
fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
month for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1000/-
i/d. RI for one month for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC.
Megha 1/12
201_apeal_805_2015
2. The facts in brief, as are necessary to decide this appeal are
as under :
On 23.5.2008 PW1 Kishor Waghmare had lodged a FIR (Exh.34)
alleging that on the same date at about 1.00 p.m. both the accused
with common intention trespassed into his house and attempted to
cause his death by assaulting him with sickle, chopper, iron rod, etc.
On the basis of the said FIR PW6-Vitthal Bhosale, who was attached to
Faraskhana Police Station registered Crime No.89 of 2008 under
Sections 452, 307, 323, 502 r/w. 34 of the IPC against both the
accused. Upon registration of the FIR PW6 proceeded to the place of
the incident and conducted the spot panchanama at Exhibit-29. He
seized blood stained clothes of the injured and arrested the accused.
PW6 recorded the statements of the witnesses and forwarded all the
seized material to Chemical Analysis. The injured were treated in
Sasoon General Hospital. He obtained injury certificate at Exhibit-38
from the Medical Officer of the Sasoon General Hospital. Upon
completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against both the
accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the
Megha 2/12
201_apeal_805_2015
learned Sessions Judge, framed charged (Exhibit-7) against the accused
for offences punishable under sections 307 and 452 r/w 34 of the IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. The prosecution
in support of its case examined 6 witnesses. Statements of the accused
were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence of the
accused was that of total denial. The learned Sessions Judge upon
appreciation of the evidence held the accused guilty the offences under
Sections 307 and 452 r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced them as stated
above. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the
accused have preferred this appeal.
4. Mr. Kuldeep Patil, the learned counsel for the accused has
submitted that the evidence on record does not prove that the accused
had inflicted any such injury on PW1, which was likely to cause his
death. He has submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record
to prove that the accused had committed any such act from which it
can be gathered that they had an intention of committing murder of
PW1.
5. Mr. Rajan Salvi, the learned APP has submitted that the
accused had assaulted PW1 with deadly weapons. He has submitted
Megha 3/12
201_apeal_805_2015
that in order to attract 307, it is not necessary that bodily injury
capable of causing death should have been inflicted. In support of this
contention he has rleied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State
of Maharashtra Vs. Balram Bama Patil AIR 1983 SC 305.
6. I have perused the records and considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties.
7. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the testimony of
the injured witness-PW1 Kishore Waghmare, his brother PW2 Prashant
Waghmare and his wife PW3-Rupali Kishore Waghmare. In order to
effectively deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsels
for the accused and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the
evidence of these three witnesses.
8. PW1-Kishore Waghmare deposed that on the relevant date
when he reached home he saw that the accused had assaulted his
brother Prashant Waghmare. He has stated that accused No.2-Deepak
was armed with a steel pipe and the accused No.1-Amit was armed
with a chopper. He has stated that on seeing him, both the accused
started assaulting him. The accused No.2-Deepak gave a blow with
Megha 4/12
201_apeal_805_2015
steel pipe on his leg and the accused No.1- Amit attacked him with a
chopper on his head. He has deposed that the police had come to the
hospital and recorded the FIR at Exhibit- 34. In his cross-examination
he has stated that many people from the locality had gathered at the
spot. He has further stated that he was unconscious and was admitted
in Sasoon Hospital for one week. He has further stated that his brother
Prashant was also admitted in the Hospital for one month. He has
stated that he and Prashant reside in the same locality and the house of
Prashant is at a distance of 100 feet away from his house. He has
denied that PW2-Prashant had enticed Sarika, the sister-in-law to
accused No.2-Deepak and that said Sarika and her children were living
with Prashant. He has admitted that prior to the incident the brother
of the accused No.1 had assaulted Prashant and that the said incident
had led to registration of crime against Prashant as well as the brother
of the accused No.1.
9. PW2 Prashant claims that on 23.5.2008 at about 1.00 p.m.
both the accused entered his house. The accused No.1 Amit questioned
him as to why he had falsely implicated Pritam in a criminal case and
further threatened to cause his death. PW2 has stated that the
accused No.1 -Amit thereafter inflicted blows of chopper on his head
Megha 5/12
201_apeal_805_2015
and leg. The accused No.2-Deepak also gave a blows of steel pipe on
his head, hands and legs. In the meantime his brother PW1 arrived at
the place of the incident and that both the accused attempted to cause
his death by assaulted him with chopper and steel Pipe. He has further
stated that he was treated in the Sasoon Hospital for 17 days. In his
cross examination he has stated that Sarika is the sister in law of the
accused No.2- Deepak. He has stated that the accused No.2-Deepak,
his brother Raju and Sarika were residing in the said locality. He has
denied the suggestion that after the death of Raju he was having illicit
relations with Sarika. He has admitted that said Sarika and her two
children are living with him since over four years. He has stated that
he and Sarika are living as husband and wife. He has admitted that
prior to this incident there was quarrel between him and the Pritam,
brother of accused No.1-Amit and that offence is registered against
both of them. He has denied the suggestion that his relations with the
accused have been strained because of his love affair with Sarika.
10. PW3-Rupali is the wife of PW1- Kishore. She has deposed
that on 23.5.2008 at about 1.00 p.m. both the accused entered her
house and assaulted her brother in law -PW2 Prashant because of some
previous enmity. She has stated that the accused No.1 was armed with
Megha 6/12
201_apeal_805_2015
chopped and that the accused No.2 was armed with a pipe and that
both the accused inflicted blows of iron pipe and chopper on head,
neck, back, hands and legs of Prashant. In the meantime her husband
PW1-Kishor entered the house and that the accused also assaulted him.
In her cross examination, she has stated that Prashant resides
separately and that his hut is situated towards the rear side of her hut.
She has admitted that PW2-Prashant lives with Sarika and her children
and that the relations between Prashant and the accused are strained
because PW2 is living with Sarika, who is the sister-in-law of the
accused No.2.
11. Pw3 has stated in her cross-examination that the entire
incident had lasted for about half an hour and that about 30 to 40
persons had gathered at the place of the incident. She has deposed
that Kishore and Prashant had sustained injuries. Prashant was
unconscious and the people from the locality had taken him to the
hospital. He was admitted in the hospital for about 8 to 10 days. Her
husband Kishore was not admitted in the Hospital and that he was
discharged after giving first aid.
12. The evidence of these witnesses indicates that there was
Megha 7/12
201_apeal_805_2015
enmity between the accused and victims as the accused believed that
PW2-Prashant was having illicit relations with Sarika, the sister in law
of the accused No.2-Deepak. This had led to a quarrel between PW2-
Prashant and Pritam, the brother of the accused No.2 and consequent
registration of crimes against both. According to PW2-Prashant, the
incident in question was a consequence of registration of crime against
Pritam. The evidence of these three witnesses indicates that both the
accused had entered their house armed with chopper and pipe and
inflicted injuries on PW1 and PW2. According to PW1 the accused
No.1-Amit had given one blow of chopper on his head and the accused
No.2-Deepak had given a blow of steel pipe on his leg. PW2 has stated
that both the accused had assaulted PW1-Kishor by Chopper and Steel
Pipe, without giving any further details of the assault. Whereas PW3
has merely stated that the accused had assaulted her husband. The
evidence of PW2 and PW3 does not indicate that the accused had
inflicted injuries on the vital parts of the body of PW1. They are also
silent on the number of blows given by the accused.
13. It is pertinent to note that PW1 claims that as a result of
the assault he had become unconscious and was shifted to the hospital
in unconscious state. He has stated that he was admitted in the
Megha 8/12
201_apeal_805_2015
hospital for one week and that his brother PW2 Prashant was admitted
in the hospital for about one month. PW2 claims that the testimony of
PW2 does not indicate that either he or PW1 Kishore had become
unconscious as a result of the incident. PW2 has stated that he was
admitted in the hospital for about 17 days. PW3 has given a different
version. She has deposed that her husband was not unconscious and
that he was not admitted in the hospital. She has stated that her
husband was discharged after giving first aid. She claims that her
brother-in-law Prashant was unconscious and that he was admitted in
the hospital for about 8 to 10 days. A close look at the evidence of
these three witnesses clearly indicates that the witnesses are at
variance as to the exact incident as well as the nature of treatment.
14. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution, for the
reasons best known, has not examined the medical officer who had
treated PW1 and PW2. The prosecution has also not adduced any
evidence to prove that these two witnesses were in fact admitted and
treated in Sasoon Hospital.
15. In Balram Patil, supra the incident was between a group of
two political parties. About 50 to 60 persons belonging to one of the
Megha 9/12
201_apeal_805_2015
political parties, had caused bodily injuries to the members of the other
political party by means of guns, axes and sticks. One of the persons,
who was assaulted with an axe had died at the spot. The Sessions
Court had convicted some of the accused for offence under section 307
of the IPC. The High Court had set aside the said conviction under
Section 307 mainly on the ground that injuries inflicted on the
witnesses were in the nature of simple hurt. While setting aside the
said part of the judgment the Apex Court held thus :-
"9.xxx
To justify a conviction under this section it
is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of
injury actually caused may often give considerable
assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of
the accused, such intention may also be deduced from
other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be
ascertained without any reference at all to actual
wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act
of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not
be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted
is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the
Megha 10/12
201_apeal_805_2015
culprit would be liable under this section. It is not
necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of
the assault should be sufficient under ordinary
circumstances to cause the death of the person
assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or
knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this
section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be
the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is
present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof."
16. The facts of the present case are totally distinguishable. In
the instant case, apart from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence
to prove that PW1 and PW2 had in fact sustained any grievous or fatal
injuries on the vital part of their body, there are no other surrounding
circumstances from which the intention of the accused to cause death
of PW1 Prashant can be gathered. It is to be noted that the evidence of
the injured and the eye witness is at variance as regards the actual
incident, the number of blows and the nature of the injuries. Though
the accused are alleged to have inflicted injuries with chopper and
Megha 11/12
201_apeal_805_2015
pipe, there is no evidence on record to indicate that the said chopper
and pipe were stained with blood. In fact, though the Investigating
Officer had stated that he had forwarded the seized material to the CA
the prosecution for the reasons best known has not produced the CA
report.
17. Considering all the above factors, in my considered view
the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction of the accused under Sections
307 and 452 of the IPC cannot be sustained. Hence, the following
order:-
(I) The appeal is allowed.
(II) The impugned judgment and order dated 3 rd August,
2015 in Sessions Case No. 486 of 2009 passed by the
District Judge-13 and Additional Sessions Judge,
Pune, is quashed and set aside.
(III) The accused are acquitted of the offences punishable
under Sections 307 and 452 r/w. 34 of the IPC.
(IV) The accused shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other crime.
(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Megha 12/12
