Prakash Narayan Tavade vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 10600 Bom

                                                                                 cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 255 OF 1998
 (1)    Maruti Narayan Shinde,
       Age: 29 years.
 (2) Vilas Atmaram Mirashi,
       Age: 30 years, Occ: Labourer,
 All residents of Lokmanya Nagar,
 Pada No. 4, Thane.                                            ... Appellants.


 v/s.
 The State of Maharashtra
 (At the instance of P.I. Vartak Nagar Police
 Station, Thane.)                             ... Respondent.

                                         WITH
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 309 OF 1998

 Prakash Narayan Tawde,
 Age : 30 years, Occ. Typist,
 R/o. Lokmanya Nagar, Pada No. 4,                              ... Appellant.
 Thane.
 v/s.
 The State of Maharashtra
 (At the instance of P.I. Vartak Nagar Police
 Station, Thane.)                             ... Respondent.

                                        -------------------
 Mr. Abhishek Singh, advocate for appellants in both the appeals.
 Ms. P.P. Shinde, APP for State.
                                       ---------------------
                                  CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
                                          N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
                        RESERVED ON : MARCH 22, 2021.
                 PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 9, 2021.

Talwalkar                                                                                    1 of 13




        ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2021                            ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2021 02:54:01 :::
                                                                    cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc




JUDGMENT (PER SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

1 The appellants herein are convicted for an offence

punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and are

sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and shall pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer further RI for a period of two

months by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case

No.384 of 1996 vide Judgment and Order dated 31 st December 1997.

Hence, these Appeals.

2 It is the case of the prosecution that, on 1st January 1996,

Dilip Mane lodged a report at Vartak Nagar Police Station, Thane

alleging therein that at about mid night of 1 st January 1996 his sister

Shaila woke him up and informed him that their brother Sanjay has

been assaulted by someone. He followed his sisters and his mother,

who had rushed to the nearby Pooja Hotel. They saw Sanjay lying in a

pool of blood. He had noticed a bleeding injury on the left side of his

chest. They had taken him to a nearby hospital, where they were

advised to take the injured to Civil Hospital. He was taken to the Civil

Hospital. He was declared dead on arrival. Their neighbours Lahu

Talwalkar 2 of 13

cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc

Chavan (P.W. 2) and Jitendra had been to the hospital to see the

injured. In the Civil Hospital, P.W. 2 informed Dilip that, Sanjay was in

their company celebrating the arrival of new year. They were having

drinks in the house of Sunil Gurav. Except Sunil, all other friends had

been to answer nature's call at about 12.30 a.m. At that time, some

unknown person had assaulted Sanjay with some weapon. That,

Sanjay had sustained two injuries on his back also. Based on the said

report, Crime No.1 of 1996 was registered at Vartak Nagar Police

Station, Thane for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian

Penal Code against unknown person. The prosecution has examined 15

witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

3 Implicit reliance is placed upon the evidence of P.W. 7 Datta

Dhavri and P.W. 8 - Shekhar Pujari. P.W. 1 is the first informant Dilip,

the real brother of the deceased. He has proved the contents of First

Information Report, which is at Exh.10. It is elicited in the cross-

examination that his brother-in- law Sunil was at his home and that

Sanjay was at home upto 10.30 to 11 p.m. The deceased was seen

lying unconscious on the road.

Talwalkar                                                                       3 of 13





                                                                  cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc



4               P.W. 2 Lahu Chavhan informed Sunil Gurav about the said

incident, but before they reached, Sanjay was already taken to the

hospital. P.W. 3 Santosh Polekar is declared hostile by the prosecution.

5 The inquest panchanama at Exh. 41 would indicate that the

deceased had sustained a semi-circle shaped injury in the intercostal

space, which was a quarter of an inch. There is no other injury noticed

on the body of the deceased. P.W. 4 - Dr. Sushil Bahedi performed

autopsy on Sanjay. He had noticed two external injuries. According to

him, on opening of thorax, he found a hole in intercostal muscle and

fourth rib beneath the external injury No.1 and a vertical hole in

pericardium admeasuring 1 ½ cm. x 1 cm. with haemoperitoneum and

incised wound on the lateral border of left ventricle near the valve and

it was vertical in shape admeasuring 2.5 cm. x 1 cm., but it was not

penetrating through the heart. Both the lungs were found lying in the

pool of blood. The opinion of cause of death was "due to

haemorrhagic shock due to stab injury to the heart." The post-mortem

notes are at Exh. 18. The injuries sustained by the deceased could be

possible due to gupti and the blade marked at Articles 15 and 17

respectively were recovered from accused Nos. 2 and 3.

Talwalkar                                                                    4 of 13





                                                                 cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc




6               P.W. 7 Datta Dhavri is the star witness. He has deposed

before the Court that on 31st December 1995, he along with his friends

including Sanjay had consumed liquor in the house of Sunil Gurav till

11.30 p.m. Then, he along with Sanjay went to Hotel Pooja whereas

the other friends proceeded to the water tank. They both had

consumed beer in Pooja Hotel. One person on the adjoining table had

received an accidental dash from Sanjay. The unknown person was

annoyed and therefore, Sanjay had tendered apology. P.W. 7 had

identified the accused No. 3 as a person who had received a dash from

Sanjay. The apology was not accepted and in response, Sanjay had told

him to act as per his will. After they left Pooja Hotel, Sanjay wanted to

smoke a cigarette and therefore, P.W. 7 had proceeded to a pan stall to

purchase cigarette for his friend. That, all the three accused came

towards them and started beating both with fist blows. After some

time, he saw Sanjay lying in a pool of blood. He, therefore, rushed

towards the house of Sanjay to inform about the incident. It is

pertinent to note that P.W. 7 is not sure as to whether Sanjay had

accompanied him to the pan stall or whether he had gone alone to

fetch cigarette for Sanjay. According to him, Sanjay had died on the

Talwalkar 5 of 13

cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc

spot.

7 It is pertinent to note that P.W.7 had categorically stated

that after five days of the alleged incident he was called at Thane

prison for identifying the accused. That, fifty persons were presented

and he had identified the three accused persons who had assaulted

Sanjay.

8 It is admitted in the cross-examination that on 1 st January

1996 he was taken into custody by the police and was detained till 9

p.m. The police had not inquired with them about the incident. All

friends who were celebrating the new years' eve along with Sanjay and

P.W. 7 were called to the police station. There are material omissions

and contradictions in his testimony.

9 His statement was recorded on 1st of January 1996. The

portion marked 'A' in the evidence of P.W.7 reads as follows:

"that after the family members of Sanjay had taken him to the hospital, I slept on the terrace of Hasmukh Shah."

The portion marked 'B' is read as follows:-

Talwalkar 6 of 13

cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc

"Today I learned that Sanjay had succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on the previous night and that he has died in civil hospital, Thane."

His testimony to the extent that he had informed brother-in-law of the

deceased is falsified. Similarly, his contention that he was in civil

hospital till 2 a.m. is also falsified

10 P.W. 8 Shekhar Pujari is the Manager of hotel Pooja.

According to him, on 31st December 1995 Vilas Bhosale and his two

friends had occupied a table. He could not recollect as to whether

accused Nos.1 and 3 were accompanying Prakash Tavde. There was a

verbal altercation between Prakash Tavde and Sanjay since Sanjay had

given a dash to one of the friends of Prakash Tavde. A glass was broken

in the said altercation and therefore, he had driven both the groups out

of the hotel. Thereafter, he closed the hotel and had no knowledge

about the aftermath of the said altercation. There are material

omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P.W.8, but they are

pertaining to the incident in the hotel.

11 P.W. 9 Dr. Mohan had examined accused No. 3 on 1 st

January 1996 at 4.45 a.m. The injured and his relative that is accused

Talwalkar 7 of 13

cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc

No.1 were found under the influence of alcohol. Accused No. 3 has

sustained an incised wound on right mid-forearm at flexer aspect

lateral side measuring 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. muscle deep. P.W.8 has opined

that the injuries sustained by the patient could be possible by a broken

piece of glass. The injury certificate is at Exh.26.

12 There is a recovery of Hacksaw at the hands of accused No.

2 from an electrical shop on 3rd January 1996. The P.W. 10 who was the

panch of recovery was declared hostile.

13 It is pertinent to note that the Special Executive Magistrate

who had allegedly conducted Test Identification Parade has not been

examined by the prosecution, but the trial court has placed reliance

upon P.W. 7.

14 P.W.15 - Vasant Ingavle has testified that P.W.1 had lodged a

report on 1st January 1996 at 2 a.m. That, the accused Nos. 1 and 2

were arrested on 1st January 1996. They were wearing blood stained

clothes. Late in the evening, their blood stained clothes were recovered

between 10.30 to 11.15 p.m. On 3 rd January 1996, there was recovery

Talwalkar 8 of 13

cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc

of hacksaw at the behest of accused No.1 from his workshop. On 4 th

January, accused No.3 was arrested. On 8 th January 1996, a gupti was

recovered at the instance of accused No. 2. It is pertinent to note that

he has categorically stated that on 7 th March 1996, he had issued a

letter requesting the Executive Magistrate to conduct Test

Identification Parade, but the chargesheet was filed on 21 st February

1996. He had proved the omissions and contradictions in the evidence

of P.W.7 and P.W.8.

15 The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the

attention of this court to all the inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.7

and P.W. 8. It is urged that the prosecution has utterly failed to stand

on its own legs and hence, the accused deserve to be acquitted.

16 Per contra, the learned APP submits that P.W.7 is an

eyewitness, and his evidence is trustworthy and therefore, no

interference is called for.

17 Upon meticulous examination of evidence, it needs to be

noted as follows:

Talwalkar                                                                           9 of 13





                                                                   cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc



        (i)     P.W. 7 was confused as to whether the deceased had

accompanied him to the pan stall.

        (ii)    According to him, the accused had assaulted P.W. 7 as well

as deceased with fist and kick blows. He had not seen any weapon in

the hands of any of the accused. Therefore, the recovery of gupti and

hacksaw at the hands of accused Nos. 1 and 2 is of no significance.

Moreover, the panchas to the recovery of weapon are declared hostile.

(iii) According to P.W. 7, he had informed the brother-in-law of

the deceased about the incident in which Sanjay succumbed to the

injury. However, the same is marked as a contradiction.

(iv) P.W. 7 has stated that he was called to Thane prison on the

fifth day for the purpose of identification of the accused. However, the

accused were in police custody for more than five days. The

prosecution has not examined the Special Executive Magistrate who

had conducted the Test Identification Parade. The memorandum of the

test identification parade is dated 18/8/1997. In view of this, it is

clear that there is no possibility of P.W. 7 having been called to Thane

Prison for the purpose of identification as according to him, he was

called on the fifth day of the incident. Hence, the prosecution has

failed to establish that P.W. 7 had identified the assailants of Sanjay.

Talwalkar                                                                    10 of 13





                                                                     cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc



        (v)      The conviction of the appellants is mainly based upon the

evidence of P.W. 7 who has claimed to be an eye witness. His conduct

soon after the incident would show that he is not a reliable witness.

His credence has been shattered in the cross-examination. The

material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 7 need to

be taken note of.

18 It is a settled position of criminal jurisprudence that the

evidence of the eye witness necessarily needs to be a sterling testimony

in order to warrant conviction on the basis of his/her evidence. It is not

the quantity but the quality of the evidence which should weigh upon

the court. The Apex C1ourt in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v/s.

State of NCT of Delhi held as under :-

"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness 1 (2012) 8 SCC 21

Talwalkar 11 of 13

cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc

should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness."

19 In the case of Anil Phukan v/s. State of Assam2, the

Supreme Court has held that :-

"Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eye-witness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye-witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then, the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect."

20 The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the

assailants had assaulted the deceased with any sharp weapon which

would cause bleeding injuries. The accused had no motive to

eliminate the deceased. The whole incident is an outcome of a trifling 2 1993 AIR 1462

Talwalkar 12 of 13

cr.apeal255.309.1998.doc

quarrel. And even according to eye witness, the assailants had dealt

fists blows upon the deceased. Hence, it cannot be said that the

prosecution has proved that the assailants have committed an offence

punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Court. Therefore,

both the appeals deserve to be allowed.

21                Hence, following order is passed :

                                       ORDER

(i)               Both the appeals are allowed.

(ii)              The conviction and sentence passed against the appellants

vide Judgment and Order dated 31/12/1997 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.384 of 1996 is hereby

quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges

levelled against them.

(iii)             The bail bonds stand cancelled.

(iv)              Fine amount if paid be refunded.

(v)               Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.




            (N.R. BORKAR, J)           (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)




Talwalkar                                                                          13 of 13