Bombay High Court
Fulkunda @ Suresh Ranganna Wadde vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 September, 2023
Bench: A.S. Gadkari, S. G. Dige
2023:BHC-AS:28233-DB
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1225 OF 2022
Fulkunda @ Suresh Ranganna Wadde )
Age 33 years, Occu : Nil, )
R/o, Devgad, Taluka : Adhuni, Andhra Pradesh, )
Convict No. C 16586, Yerwada Centra Prison, )
Pune. ) .. Appellant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra )
Through Devu Road Police Station )
FIR No. 32/2008. ) .. Respondent
......
• Ms.Farhana Shah, Appointed Advocate for the Appellant.
• Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent-State.
......
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 25 JULY 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 26 SEPTEMBER 2023
JUDGMENT (Per : Shivkumar Dige, J.) :-
1. Appellant (original accused) has impugned Judgment
and Order dated 19.01.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune, whereby Appellant is convicted for the offence
1 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
"IPC") and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of
fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1. First Informant, PW-1 Mohan Pilley is the brother of
deceased Raja. On 04.02.2008, at about 4:30 p.m., Mohan and Raja
went towards water tank situated nearby their house, there they met
friends of Raja, Suresh Paul, Arun Avinash Pol and Pravin Pokle.
Meanwhile, his cousin Sohan came there. When they all were
chitchatting, at that time, Appellant and deceased, Amir @ Kunya
came there on blue colour scooter bearing No. MH-14/R-2154.
Kunya had worn blue colour full T-shirt and blue jeans. Appellant
and Kunya asked Raja to accompany them. At that time, PW-1 told
them, Raja wanted to visit the house of his grandmother and they
should not take him anywhere. They told to PW-1 that, they would
come back within five minutes. Raja also told them that, he wanted
to go to the house of his grandmother, but they insisted Raja to
accompany with them. Then Raja went along with Appellant and
Kunya on their scooter. Raja sat in between Kunya and Appellant,
they went towards Dehuroad bazar.
2 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
2.2. Thereafter, about 30 to 45 minutes friend of PW-1,
Santosh Thorat came to the house of PW-1 and told that, Raja was
assaulted. After hearing it PW-1 went to Sitlanagar on the
motorcycle of Santosh. On reaching at the incident spot, PW-1 came
to know that, Raja was taken to Cantonment Hospital, Dehuroad.
He also came to know that, person wearing blue T-shirt and person
accompanying him, assaulted Raja by wooden log on his face and
head. The said persons ran away on the scooter towards Dehuroad.
PW-1 and Santosh went to Cantonment Hospital, there PW-1 came
to know that, Raja was declared dead. Thereafter PW-1 lodged
complaint against Appellant and Kunya.
2.3. Prior to lodging of FIR, Dehuroad Police had received
information that, one person was lying in the injured condition in
front of Sitladevi temple, hence Investigating Officer- Mr. Jagannath
Patil rushed to the spot and found injured lying there. He also saw
wooden log stained with blood lying there. He immediately sent
injured to Cantonment Hospital, where Medial Officer examined
him and declared dead.
2.4. Investigating Officer came back to Dehuroad Police
Station where PW-1 was present who lodged complaint. During the
3 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
course of investigation, Police arrested Appellant and Kunya. After
completion of investigation chargesheet was filed.
2.5. The case was committed to the Additional Sessions
Court, Pune. During the pendency of trial, accused Kunya @ Amir
Gous passed away. The charge was framed against the Appellant.
He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case,
Prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. The statement of Appellant
under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
"Cr.P.C.") was recorded. The defence of Appellant is of total denial.
3. Considering the evidence on record and submissions
made on behalf of both the learned Advocates, learned Trial Court
by its impugned Judgment and Order convicted Appellant as
referred above.
4. We have heard submissions of both the learned
Counsels. Perused record, and Judgment and Order passed by the
learned trial Court.
5. There is no dispute about the homicidal death of
deceased. PW-8 Dr. Madhav Waghmare, who conducted postmortem
on the dead body of Raja has stated that, on examination of dead
body, he noticed following external injuries :
1.
4 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
(1) Contusion with lacerated wound on frontal
scalp region having size of 2 X 2 cms, bone deep;
(2) CLW on left eye-brow region, having size of 1,
½ X ½ X bone deep;
(3) Contusion of right cheek to chin region, having
size of 4 X 3 cms;
(4) CLW on upper and lower lip region having size
of 2 X ½ X ½ cms, caused by incision of tooth, four
upper and two lower teeth were fallen;
(5) Contusion on left tempo region to above ear
region, having size of 2 X 2 cms;
(6) There was fracture of skull invading frontal,
parietal, right temporal and occipital bone.
He opined that, above injuries were ante-mortem and
could have caused within 19 hours prior to the postmortem. The
cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to grievous injuries
to vital organs with fracture to skull invading right-left frontal
parietal, temporal, occipital bone with laceration to brain. He
opined that, the injuries sustained to deceased were sufficient to
cause his death in ordinary course of nature. In cross examination,
it was suggested to him that, the injuries sustained to deceased
could be possible due to fall from moving vehicle which he denied.
5 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
This witness stated that, injury Nos. 2, 4 could be possible, if person
falls on stone. This witness admitted that, the weapon of assault
was not shown to him by Police. The defence has not disputed
homicidal death of deceased.
6. Prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence
and direct evidence. It is the case of prosecution that, Appellant and
Kunya had taken the deceased with them and it was seen by PW-1
Mohan and PW-7 Parvati Babu. The incident of assault on deceased
by Appellant and Kunya was witnessed by PW-5 Vaibhav Chougule
and PW-6 Kali Kuppuswami.
7. Firstly, we would see the evidence regarding last seen.
To prove the case of last seen, prosecution has examined First
Informant, PW-1 Mohan and PW-7 Parvati Babu.
7.1. PW-1 Mohan has stated that, he knew Appellant and
Kunya as they were friends of Raja. On 04.02.2008 at about 4 p.m.,
he along with Raja went near water tank. When they reached there,
Suresh Paul, Arun Pol and Pravin Pokle were already present there.
After about 10-15 minutes, Sohan joined them. After about half an
hour, Appellant and Kunya came there on blue colour scooter
bearing No. MH-14-R/2154. Kunya was wearing blue colour T-shirt
and blue jeans. Appellant had worn blue colour T-shirt and blue
6 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
jeans. His brother Raja was to meet his grandmother, Appellant and
Kunya asked Raja to accompany them and also told that, they will
return within five minutes. This witness told them not to take Raja
along with them as Raja wanted to meet his grandmother but they
told this witness that, they will return back within five minutes. Raja
had also refused to accompany them but they insisted him, hence he
went along with them. Appellant was riding the scooter. Raja sat in
between Appellant and Kunya, scooter went towards the market.
Thereafter, about 30 to 45 minutes, Santosh Thorat came to this
witness and told that, Raja was assaulted. This witness went along
with Santosh on his motorcycle at Shitla Nagar at the incident spot.
He saw bloodstains on the spot. There he came to know that, Raja
was taken to Cantonment Hospital, he rushed there. There he came
to know that, two persons who had come on blue scooter, assaulted
Raja by wooden log. On reaching hospital, this witness came to
know that, Raja was declared dead. He filed complaint against
Appellant and Kunya. The complaint is at Exhibit-33. This witness
identified the clothes of Appellant and Kunya and Raja. These are at
Articles 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17.
7.2. In cross examination, this witness has stated that, he
had described in complaint about the clothes worn by Appellant but
7 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
he cannot assign any reason why the description of clothes of
Appellant is not mentioned in the complaint. It is also not
mentioned in the complaint that, both accused had asked Raja to
accompany them. This witness admitted that, Raja was facing
criminal cases. This witness denied the suggestion that, Raja was
killed by his enemies and not by Appellant and Kunya and Appellant
has been falsely implicated in this case. From the evidence of this
witness it reveals that, he lodged complaint immediately after death
of his brother and in the said complaint, he has given details of
happened incident. In the said complaint, it is also mentioned that,
how Appellant and Kunya came to his house and taken away Raja
with them.
8. The last seen evidence of PW-1, is corroborated by PW-
7 Parvati Babu. She has stated that, in the year 2008, she was
having scooter bearing registration No. MH-14/R-2154, she used to
send her scooter for servicing and repairs to workshop of Kunya and
Appellant. She knew Raja. On 04.02.2008, at about 4:30 p.m. Raja,
Appellant and Kunya had come to her house to solve their dispute.
Appellant and Kunya told this witness that, Raja used to demand
money from them. This witness told them that, she had lost her
father, therefore, asked them to come later on and she would solve
8 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
their dispute. Thereafter, they all three went away. This witness
identified Appellant present before the Court.
8.1. In cross examination, this witness has stated that, she
does not know the name of the garage of Appellant. She does not
have any receipt to show that, she had given her scooter to
workshop of Appellant. From the evidence of this witness it reveals
that, on the day of incident, at about 4:30 p.m. Raja was in company
of Appellant and Kunya. Appellant and Kunya were angry on Raja
due to his behaviour. Though this witness in cross examination
stated that, she does not know name of garage of Appellant and she
does not have receipt to show that, scooter was given for repair in
workshop of Appellant but Appellant has not denied ownership of
scooter of this witness. In cross examination no question was put up
to this witness regarding ownership of scooter. Appellant has not
given any explanation how said scooter came in his possession.
While committing crime Appellant and Kunya used scooter of this
witness. It appears from the record that, after leaving house of this
witness, there was anger in the mind of Appellant and Kunya against
Raja. Then they assaulted him with wooden logs.
9 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
9. To strengthen its case, prosecution has relied on the
evidence of eye witness PW-5 Vaibhav Chougule and PW-6 Kali
Kuppuswami.
PW-5 Vaibhav has stated that, he and his father runs a
shop at Sitla Nagar. On 04.02.2008 at about 5:00 p.m., there was
rush in his shop. He heard commotion of quarrel hence he saw that,
one person assaulted another by wooden plank on his head and
face. Thereafter, the person who assaulted ran away.
In cross examination, this witness admitted that, due to
rush of customers, he could not see the alleged incident properly.
Evidence of this witness appears to be not reliable as he has not seen
the incident properly due to rush of customers.
10. PW-6 Kali Kuppuswami, other eye witness has stated
that, he knew Raja, Kunya and Appellant. He identified Appellant
present before the Court. He further stated that, on 04.02.2008, at
about 5:00 p.m., he was standing near Sitladevi Chouk, Dehuroad.
He saw Raja along with Appellant and Kunya. Appellant assaulted
Raja with wooden plank on his head, Kunya also assaulted him. Raja
fell down on road, thereafter, both accused ran away on their blue
coloured scooter.
10 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
In cross examination, this witness stated that, he was
serving in Force Motors as a sweeper. His work place was at Akurdi
and duty hours were 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He admitted that,
deceased Raja was from his native place and he had close relation
with Raja. He saw incident from the distance of 100 ft. This
witness admitted that, scene of offence was place of heavy rush of
people. From the evidence of this witness it establishes that, this
witness was present near the incident spot and he had seen the
incident from the distance of 100 ft. This witness was knowing
Raja, Appellant and Kunya, so it cannot be said that, identification
parade of accused was not taken to identity them.
11. To prove the seizure of articles, the prosecution has
relied on evidence of PW-2 Abu Murti and PW-11 Sunil Walmiki. In
presence of PW-2 Abu Murti Police prepared spot panchanama and
seized two wooden logs from the spot. The spot panchanama is at
Exhibit-35. In cross examination, nothing came on record to
disbelieve his evidence. In presence of PW-11, Police seized blood
stained clothes worn by Appellant and Kunya at the time of
incidence by a panchanama (Exhibit-58). This witness identified
Appellant present before Court and the clothes of Appellant which
are at Article Nos. 15,16 and 17. In presence of this witness on
11 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
disclosure statement of Kunya Police seized scooter uses in crime.
In cross examination this witness stated that, he does not remember
the date of panchanama. This witness admitted that, the accused
who gave voluntary statement is not present in Court. This witness
admitted that, he was residing near the house of Raja.
11.1. It has come in the evidence of PW-13 Jagannath Patil,
Investigating Officer that, he took injured to hospital, seized two
wooden logs lying on incident spot. Seized clothes of Appellant and
Kunya, in presence of panch witness and seized scooter as per
disclose statement of Kunya. He sent muddemal articles to C.A.
11.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Munna Kashid, eye
witness and panch witness PW-4 Arun Avghade, eye witness PW-9
Santosh Thorat, who informed PW-1 Mohan about the incident but
these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Nothing
elicited in their cross examination taken by learned APP. PW-10
Vandana Bhujbal and PW-12 Shakil Shaikh have stated that, they
had delivered seized articles to Chemical Analyser. The Chemical
Analyser's report is at Exhibit-77. This report shows that, human
blood stains found on clothes of Appellant and Kunya and seized
two wooden logs.
12 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
12. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it proves
that, Appellant and Kunya had taken Raja with them on scooter. It
was seen by PW-1 Mohan. Thereafter, at about 4:30 p.m. both
accused and Raja had gone to the house of PW-7 Parvati Babu to
solve their dispute. Thereafter, the incident of assault on Raja by
Appellant and Kunya witnessed by PW-6 Kali Kuppuswami. He had
specifically stated that, Appellant and Kunya assaulted Raja with
wooden plank and ran away from the spot on blue colour scooter.
PW-7 in her evidence stated that, she had given her scooter No. MH-
14/R-2154 to workshop of Kunya and Appellant for servicing and
repairs. The said scooter was seized as per the statement of Kunya.
It is the contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that, there
was no role of Appellant in the said crime. Deceased accused Kunya
had assaulted Raja with wooden plank. It is duly established that,
the death of Raja is homicidal. Raja was in company of Appellant
and therefore it was incumbent upon Appellant to explain, when he
parted with the company of Raja. No explanation was given by
Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. nor any
evidence is produced to show that, he had parted with the company
of Raja at the relevant time. It proves that, Appellant is responsible
for the death of Raja.
13 of 14
SSK 201-Apeal-1225-22
13. It is contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant
that, the act of Appellant would fall under Section 304 (Part-I) or
(Part-II) and not under Section 302 of I.P.C. From the evidence
produced on record it establishes that, Appellant and Kunya had
planed to kill Raja. They had taken him from his house and within
one hour they killed him. It proves that, the said act was
premeditated with intention to cause the death of Raja. We do not
see merit in the contention that, the act of Appellant would fall
within the purview of Section 304(Part-I) or (Part-II) of I.P.C.
There are no merits in the Appeal and is accordingly
dismissed.
14. In view of the above, we pass the following Order :
i. Appeal is dismissed.
ii. In view of disposal of the Appeal, Interim
Application No.3254 of 2022 pending therein, do
not survive and is accordingly disposed off.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
14 of 14
