Bombay High Court
Jaichand S/O Uttam Ramteke vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 September, 2017
Bench: Swapna Joshi
1 Judg 270917 apeal 83.03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2003
Jaichand Uttam Ramteke
Aged about 23 years,
R/o.-Defence Factory, Chanda,Type I Sector 4. .... Appellant.
-Versus-
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Bhadravati,
Tahsil Bhadravati, District Chandrapur. .... Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for appellant.
Mr. N.H. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J.
September, 2017.
Dated : 27th
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (hereinafter
will be referred as 'the accused') against the judgment and order passed
by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions
Trial No.121 of 1998 on 07-01-2003, whereby the learned trial Judge had
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for four months.
2] I have heard Mr. N.H. Joshi, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent/State. The learned Counsel for the
appellant remained absent. With the assistance of the learned APP, I
have carefully gone through the record of the prosecution case.
2 Judg 270917 apeal 83.03.odt
3] The facts leading to prefer this appeal can be summarised as
under :-
On 06-05-1998, PSI Deepak (PW-6) was the in-charge of
Police Out Post Ordnance Factory, Chanda, Police Station Bhadravati.
At that time, Prakash (PW-2) orally informed him that Fulchand (PW-1)
is being assaulted by Gupti and he was carried to the Defence Hospital.
On receipt of the said information, PSI-Deepak along with Police
Constable Pohinkar rushed to Defence Hospital of Ordnance Factory. On
reaching there, he saw the ambulance in front of the said hospital.
Therefore, PSI-Deepak (PW-6) took PW-1 to the General Hospital,
Chandrapur in ambulance as the health of PW-1 was deteriorated. PW-6
admitted to PW-1 in the hospital. He recorded the statement of PW-1.
After recording the statement of PW-1, PW-6 came to know that the
accused had assaulted PW-1 by means of Gupti. The statement of PW-1
(Exhibit-26) was recorded by PW-6. On the basis of the said statement,
PW-6 lodged his report (Exhibit-27) and on the basis of it, he registered
the offence. PW-6 then visited the place of incident on 07-05-1998. He
prepared the spot panchanama. He recorded the statements of the
witnesses. He arrested the accused on 07-05-1998. The clothes of the
injured were taken charge by Police (Exhibit-9). On completion of the
investigation, he submitted the chargesheet in the Court. The case was
committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge framed the
charge and on analysis of the evidence and after hearing both the sides,
the learned trial Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this
appeal.
4] In order to verify the rival contentions of both the sides, it
would be advantageous to go through the evidence led by the
prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-1-Fulchand, PW-2-
Prakash and PW-6-PSI Deepak. According to PW-1-Fulchand, the
incident took place on 06-05-1998 at about 4.15 pm. On that day, PW-1
3 Judg 270917 apeal 83.03.odt
attended his duty in Ordnance Factory, Chanda from 7.00 am to 4.00 pm.
While he was passing on bicycle from the road towards his house after
completing his duty, near railway crossing, as there was a sand, his
bicycle slipped. At that time, accused came and he assaulted him by
means of Gupti on his back and fled away. PW-1 deposed that Gupti
was fixed in his back. He went to the house of Chaurasiya Contractor.
Chaurasiya Contractor called the ambulance from the Factory. Then he
was taken to the hospital of Factory and from that hospital, he was
brought to Civil Hospital, Chandrapur.
5] PW-1 further stated that one Police Jamadar took out the
Gupti from his back in Civil Hospital, Chandrapur and on the same day, he
was shifted to Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. PW-1
stated that his statement was recorded at Nagpur. PW-1 identified the
weapon Gupti (Article 'A'). It was suggested to PW- 1 that on the day of
incident he was under the influence of liquor and he fell down on the
thorny cut tree and received injury to his back. PW-1 denied the said
suggestion. It was also suggested to PW-1 during his cross examination
that his relations with the father of the accused are strained since 1992,
due to the dispute of agricultural land and as the agricultural land
remained fallow on account of the said dispute, they were not in talking
terms with each other. PW-1 denied the said suggestion. The testimony
of PW-1 is not at all shaken in the cross examination. He is found to be a
reliable and trustworthy witness. From the testimony of PW-1 it is clear,
that he had no grudge against the accused in fact the accused was his
nephew and he had no reason to falsely implicate his nephew in this
offence. The testimony of PW-1 also indicates that Gupti was fixed in
his back till he was taken to the General Hospital, Chandrapur and the
said Gupti was removed from his back by the Police in the hospital.
6] The testimony of PW-2- Prakash shows that he had seen the
injured with knife affixed in his back. Accordingly, the ambulance was
4 Judg 270917 apeal 83.03.odt
sent by the hospital authority and took the injured to the hospital. The
testimony of PW-2 shows that he was serving in security office of
Ordnance Factory, Chanda. He came to know that somebody assaulted
by Gupti to Fulchand (PW-1). On the way, he informed to PW-6-Deepak
about the said incident.
7] The testimony of PW-6-Deepak reveals that when he was
making investigation of other crime, PW-2-Prakash informed him that
Fulchand (PW-1) had received blow of Gupti and he was brought to
Defence Hospital, Bhadravati. Therefore, PW-6 proceeded to the said
hospital and took the injured to Government Hospital, Chandrapur. He
admitted PW-1 in the hospital at Chandrapur. PW-6 then recorded the
statement of PW-1 in the hospital (Exhibit-26).
8] The testimony of PW-2-Prakash and PW-6-Deepak
corroborates with the testimony of PW-1 and they are found to be reliable
and natural witnesses. Their testimony demonstrates that the accused
assaulted PW-1 by means of Gupti in his back and the witnesses PW-2-
Prakash and PW-6-Deepak saw PW-1 in injured condition with Gupti
inserted in his back and in such a state, they had taken PW-1 to the
hospital at Chandrapur.
9] The Medical Officer PW-5-Dr.Mrs. Sarita, examined injured
Fulchand (PW-1) and found the below mentioned injury on his person :-
"Stab injury in the back in left infra scapular region.
size 2 cm x ¼ cm. It was penetrating injury. 14 cm.
inside. Direction is oblique downwards."
10] PW-5 categorically stated that when the patient was brought
to the hospital, the weapon was inserted in his back. The said weapon
was handed over by her to the Police. The Police prepared the
panchanama to that effect (Exhibit-22). The patient was referred from
Ordnance Factory, Chanda hospital. PW-5 identified the weapon
(article A).
5 Judg 270917 apeal 83.03.odt
11] The query was made with the Medical Officer regarding the
injury. She opined that the injury was grievous and dangerous to life
(Exhibit-20). Thus, the testimony of PW-5 makes amply clear that the
injury was dangerous to life & thus sufficient to cause death.
12] It would be advantageous to take recourse of the decision
reported in the case of Baleshwar Mahto and another vs. State of Bihar
and another, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 152, where the Hon'ble apex Court
observed that, "the testimony of injured witness is accorded a special
status in law. It is as a consequence of fact that injury to the witness is an
inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and because the
injured witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished
merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of offence.
Thus, deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are
strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies therein."
13] From the scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is
noticed that the testimony of PW-1 makes amply clear that it was the
accused who had caused the injury by means of Gupti on the back of
PW-1. The testimony of Medical Officer supports the case of the
prosecution that the said injury was caused by Gupti as she had himself
removed the Gupti from the back of PW-1. The testimony of PW-5
Medical Officer makes clear that the injury was sufficient to cause death
in ordinary course of nature. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
14] From the above said discussion, it is noticed that the
learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused. There is no illegality
or perversity noticed in the judgment of the trial Court. In view thereof, the
appeal filed by the appellant/accused is hereby dismissed. Hence, the
following order is passed:-
6 Judg 270917 apeal 83.03.odt
O r d e r
(a) Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2003 is dismissed.
(b) The judgment and order passed by the learned
Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No.121 of 1998
on 07-01-2003 stands confirmed.
(c) The sentence of appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is
maintained.
(d) The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands
cancelled. He is directed to surrender
before the learned Adhoc Additional
Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, to undergo the
remaining period of sentence. If he does not
surrender within a period of four weeks from
today, the learned trial Court is directed to take
appropriate action in accordance with law.
(e) Muddemal property be dealt with as directed by
trial Court after the appeal period is over.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
