Bombay High Court
Sopan Keshav Sangle And Anr vs State Of Mah on 9 October, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:24270
{1} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2005
1. Sopan s/o Keshav Sangle
Age: 44 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. Sanglewadi,
Tq.Gangakhed, Dist.Parbhani.
2. Saw. Ashabai Sopan Sangle
Age: 23 years, Occu. :
R/o. As above. ....Appellants
(Ori. Accused no.1 and 3)
Versus
. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Gangakhed,
Gangakhed, Dist.Parbhani. .....Respondent
.....
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. S.S.Rathi
APP for Respondent : Mr.K.K.Naik
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 03 OCTOBER, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 09 OCTOBER, 2024
JUDGMENT :
-
1. In this appeal there is challenge to the judgment and order
dated 23-12-2004 passed by II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.176 of 2002, recording guilt of
appellants for offence under Sections 307 r/w 34 and 452 r/w 34 of
{2} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) respectively.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. In brief, case of prosecution in trial Court is that, PW4 Urmila,
wife of appellant Sopan, questioned him for performing second
marriage. In such backdrop, it is alleged that husband appellant no.1
Sopan, Ramrao, appellant no.2 -Ashabai and Godawari went to
house of brother of Urmila, where she was put up after being driven
out by appellant Sopan. She was dragged out of house and then
husband Sopan dealt blow by stone on her head causing bleeding
injury saying that he would kill her. She was shifted to hospital and
treated. On her statement recorded at hospital, Ambajogai Police
registered Crime bearing no.54 of 2002.
On gathering evidence, all four accused named in the FIR were
chargesheeted for offence under Sections 307, 452, 323, 506 r/w 34
of the IPC and made to face trial conducted by learned II Adhoc
Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani vide Sessions Trial No.176 of
2002. Accused Sopan and Ashabai were held guilty for offence under
Sections 307 r/w 34 and 452 r/w 34 of the IPC. Accused nos.2 and 4
stood acquitted from all charges. Consequently, convict Sopan and
Ashabai, as held guilty for above charge, have preferred instant
{3} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
appeal on various grounds raised in the appeal memo.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellants :
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants questioned the conviction
by submitting that case has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. According to him, necessary ingredients for attracting charges
are missing. Learned Counsel took this court through the evidence of
informant Urmilabai and also through the report lodged by her and
would submit that her evidence and report are at variance. There are
material omissions and improvements. He would strenuously submit
that, that apart, FIR is after six days after the occurrence and as such
there is possibility of false implication on false and afterthought
complaint due to strained relations between informant and
appellants.
4. Learned Counsel took this court through the evidence of PW2
Suryakant, PW3 Balaji and PW7 Sumitrabai and would submit that
though they claimed to be eye witnesses, they are not consistent and
are not lending support to each other. Even their evidence is full of
variance, material omissions and contradictions and as such it is his
{4} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
submission that with such quality of evidence, guilt ought not to have
been recorded by learned trial Judge.
5. Learned Counsel took this Court through the medical evidence
and would submit that medical experts have admitted that injuries
suffered by informant Urmilabai are possible on account of fall. That
there was only single blow, but multiple injuries are noticed and
noted by medical expert. Except placing discharge summary, other
treatment medical papers are not brought on record. Therefore,
learned Counsel questions credibility of such medical evidence also.
6. Taking this court through the impugned judgment, he would
submit that all above crucial aspects are overlooked by learend trial
Judge. That there was no incriminating or convincing material. That
on same evidence, learned trial Judge has already acquitted accused
nos.2 and 4. Consequently, according to him, case being not proved
beyond reasonable doubt, it is a fit case for benefit of doubt and
prays to grant the same by allowing the appeal.
On behalf of State :
7. Countering the above submissions, learned APP would submit
{5} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
that there is not only convincing, cogent, reliable injured witness
account but also overwhelming eye witness account finding support
from medical evidence. Therefore, the only conclusion that could be
drawn on appreciation is that offence has been committed. That
learned trial Judge has correctly appreciated the available evidence
and rightly relied on the same. According to learned APP, there is no
need to interfere as no ground is made to do so.
STATUS AND ROLE OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS
PW1 Bhagwan s/o Venkatrao Kendre is Doctor at Rural Hospital,
Gangakhed and author of exh.24.
PW2 Suryakant Patloba Murkute is cousin of informant. His evidence
is at exh.25.
PW3 Balaji s/o Sambhaji Digole is brother of informant. His
evidence is at exh.29.
PW4 Urmilabai w/o Sopan Sangale is injured informant and wife of
appellant no.1. Her evidence is at exh.33.
PW5 Meghraj s/o Jaitantilal Chavala,is Medical Officer at Medical
College, Ambajogai. His evidence is at exh.38.
PW6 Deorao s/o Kathalu Take is Police Official, who noted report
{6} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
lodged by PW4 informant. His evidence is at exh.41.
PW7 Sumitrabai w/o. Babu Mundhe is sister of informant. Her
evidence is at exh.50.
PW8 Shivaji s/o. Narsing Bhendekar is Sport pancha. His evidence is
at exh.51.
PW9 Shrikrushna Pandurang Mundhe (PSI) is the Investigating
Officer.
SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE
8. Here as many as nine witnesses were examined by prosecution.
Admittedly, evidence of injured PW4 Urmilabai, and evidence of PW2
Suryakant, cousin of informant, PW3 Balaji, brother of informant and
PW7 Sumitrabai, sister of informant, who are said to be eye
witnesses is only of relevance and significance as regards to
occurrence is concerned. As regards to injuries are concerned,
medical evidence is of relevance and hence, such evidence is put to
re-appreciation and minute scrutiny.
Evidence of Informant, injured :
9. First let us deal with evidence of PW4 Urmilabai, informant
and injured, who is examined at exh.33. After deposing that she was
married to appellant no.1 Sopan and had two children, she stated
{7} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
that, she was driven out of the house after making allegations. That
appellant no.1 performed second marriage. Regarding the incident,
she deposed in para 2 is as under :
2. Incident took place before 2 years 3 months. At the time of
incident I was in the Wada of my brother. Accused Ashabai came
there, she pulled me and brought me near Paar of village. Accused
Sopan, accused Ramrao and other persons were there. I was dragged
by holding my hair by Ashabai. Accused Sopan delat stone on my
head. (Witness has pointed out left side of her head near ear by her
left hand). I was assaulted as after performing marriage by Sopan I
questioned him and had asked him to maintain me also. Accused
uttered that if I am killed there will be no question of maintaining me.
Incident occurred at about 11 to 11.30 p.m. Accused Ramrao was
standing there. Because of the stone blow I sustained giddiness and
had fallen down on the ground. I become unconscious. While
bringing myself to Gangakhed, I was in semi-conscious condition. I
regained consciousness in the hospital at Ambajogai. Police came to
the hospital. I was interrogated by Police and my narration was
recorded. My thumb impression was also obtained. The report now
shown and read over to me is same report and the contents therein
are correct. It is at Ex.34."
While under cross-examination, she is questioned about her
children and with whom they are staying and with whom she is
staying. In paragraph 4 of the cross-examination, she is questioned
about the location of the house of her brother, nature of construction
and its surroundings. Relevant cross-examination regarding
{8} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
occurrence is in paragraph 7 and she has answered that when
accused Asha entered, her mother was present; she was dragged by
holding hair. She denied that at such time, she fell. She answered
that she did attempt to rescue herself, but stated that she was
overpowered by accused. She answered that she regain
consciousness after three days and talked with Sumitra and brother.
Rest is all denial.
Eye Witness Account :
10. Another witness, who is important in chronology, is brother of
informant with whom victim allegedly stayed and he is PW3 Balaji,
who in his evidence at exh.29, after testifying that Urmila is his sister,
and that she is staying with him, deposed as under :
"Accused Sopan, Ramrao, Godabai and Ashabai came to our house.
Above two ladies caught hold my sister Urmiila and brought her in the
open space near Paar. Accused Sopan dealt stone blow on left ear of
Urmila. Accused Ramrao assaulted Urmila on her back by stone.
Then accused ran away from the spot. Because of the blow of stone
there was bleeding from the head near left ear of Urmila. In the
bullock cart I brought Urmila till village Akoli. From Akoli I brought
Urmila in the hospital at Gangakhed in auto."
Above witness is also subjected to cross-examination initially
{9} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
about marriage of his sister with Sopan, there to be marital discord,
Court cases, attempts of compromise. In paragraph 3, he is
questioned about his house, its location, height, surroundings and
number of houses around his house. He answered that they resisted
both female accused while pulling Urmila but accused did not listen.
In paragraph 4 of the cross-examination, it is brought that some
construction activity was in progress, labours were present there. To
a question witness answered that assault was made by Sopan by
standing near Urmila. He denied that he came to the spot after the
assault was over. Remaining cross is on other aspects.
11. PW2 Suryakant, cousin of informant in evidence at exh.25
after stating that Urmila is daughter of his aunt, her marriage to be
17 years back, stated that accused Sopan started suspecting her
character and that he drove her out of house and since then she was
staying with brother Limbaji. His sister used to question her husband
Sopan for performing second marriage and that his sister also
intending to lodge report for performing second marriage. Regarding
the incident, he deposed as under :
"2. Incident ook place before 2 years 2 months. On the time of
incident I was in the bazar at Gangakhed. Real sister of Urmila by
{10} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
name Sumitra and one Sindhubai accompanying her met in bazar.
Sindhubai told me that Sopan and his second wife assaulted P.W.
Urmilka by stone on head and she is admitted in the hospital. I went
to Govt. hospital at Gangakhed. Urmila was lying on bed and was
unconscious. Tjhere was injury on the left of her head near ear and
blood oozing from her both ears. P.W. Urmila was referred to hospital
at Ambajogai. Myself and Sumitra in a hired vehicle carried Urmila to
hospital at Ambajogai. At about 11 a.m. Urmila was admitted in the
hospital of Ambajogai. Her condition was serious and she was
unconscious. I remained present in the hospital with Urmila. Urmila
disclosed before Police that she was assaulted by all the accused. She
disclosed names of four accused to Police present in the hospital."
While under cross-examination in paragraph 3, questions are
put regarding previous complaint, this witness to be in Politics and to
be acquainted with Police. He admitted that he himself did not lodge
report and he volunteered that statement of Urmila was recorded by
Police. Rest all suggestions are denied.
Following omissions are brought about Urmila staying with
brother since 2-3 years, she working on wages, questioning husband
for performing second marriage.
12. PW7 Sumitrabai, sister of informant, after testifying that Sopan
performed second marriage and on its count, there used to be quarrel
between him and Urmila. Regarding the occurrence, she deposed in
{11} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
para 2 of examination in chief as under.
2. Incident took place before 2 years 5 months. At the time of
incident my mother was ill and in order to see her I came to
Wagdewadi at the house of my brother. At the time of incident,
myself, P.W. Urmila were present. Accused Ashabai came and pulled
Urmila by holding her hair. Accused Ashabi brought her near Par of
village. Accused Sopan was present near Par. viz. terrece of the
temple. Accused Sopan dealt stone on left ear on heard of Urmila.
Because of the stroke of stone blood was oozing from nose and ear.
Urmila fell unconscious. Then I took her to hospital. Myself and my
brother Balu were together while going to hospital. First we brought
her at Akoli Phata. From that place in auto rickshaw Urmila was
brought to Gangakhed. From Gangakhed Urmila was shifted to
Ambajogai. For the period of 3-4 days Urmila was not talking and her
health was serious."
In paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, she is questioned
whether on entry by Ashabai, Urmila raised shouts, whether Urmila
fell, whether attempt was made to rescue her, whether call was given
to the neighbours, where was she when Urmila was pulled. She is
questioned whether she herself informed Police and how many times
Police made enquiry with her. Rest of the cross-examination is not
pertaining to the incident.
Medical Evidence :
13. Apart from above evidence, prosecution is also heavily relying
{12} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
on evidence of medical experts i.e. PW1 Dr.Kendre and PW5
Dr.Chavala.
PW1 Dr.Kendre, seems to be Doctor at Rural Hospital
Gangakhed and he is the author of injury certificate exh.24. He
deposed about Urmila being referred, being examined and noticing
following injuries :
1. Contusion 5 x 2 c.m. left temporal region. It was grievous
nature. It was caused due to hard and blunt object.
2. Incise wound 2 x ½ x ½ c.m. vertically in direction to injury
no.1.
3. Incise wound 2 x ½ x ½ c.m. oblique in direction behind injury
no.2.
Injury nos.2 and 3 to be simple, possible by sharp object within
24 hours. He opined that injury no.1 to 3 were connected with each
other and are possible by blow with stone and further stated that in
case of blow of stone on head, and injury occurring, it could result
into death due to hemorrhage.
While under cross-examination he admitted that, in case of fall
on stone on head from height of 8-10 feet, injury no.1 is possible,
whereas injuries nos.2 and 3 are possible due to sharp object.
{13} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
14. PW5 Meghraj, Medical Officer at Medical College Ambajogai in
his evidence at exh.38 testified that, while he was on duty in casualty
ward, patient namely Urmila was admitted on 27-04-2002 and was
discharged on 02-05-2002. He testified that discharge card exh.39 is
in his handwriting. He deposed that there was CLW over left
temporal region and contusion on right parietal region, pulpable
fracture underline contusion over the temporal region and patient
was in semi comatoes state with drowsiness. That patient was
conscious but disoriented and she regain consciousness on
30-04-2002. He also opined that injuries are possible due to blow of
stone.
While under cross-examination he answered that he is
producing all copies of medical papers exh.40. He admitted that due
to fall, abrasion, contusion, CLW can occur. He answered that in
single stroke, both injuries are not possible, but he volunteered that
there was injury to scalp and it was not likely to cause due to fall.
ANALYSIS
15. On appreciating above evidence comprising of PW4 injured
Urmilabai and her relatives PW2 Suryakant (cousin) PW3 Balaji
(brother) and PW7 Sumitrabai (sister), they all are consistent about
{14} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
accused driving Urmila out of the house and she put up with her
brother. They all are consistent about incident taking place in the
house of her brother comprising of dragging around after holding
informant by hair and being hit by stone by appellant no.1. These
witnesses are categorical about Urmilabai suffering bleeding injuries
to the head and she being taken to Rural Hospital first and thereafter,
to Ambajogai. After gaining consciousness, injured Urmilabai seems
to have given statement. Therefore, there is plausible reason for
delayed reporting. The manner of cross-examination by defence to
above witnesses in trial Court itself shows that there is no serious
challenge to the occurrence. Though there are omissions, they do
not seem to be so material so as to go to the root of the prosecution
version.
CONCLUSION
16. Ocular account is sufficiently corroborated and supported by
independent not one but two medical experts. Their testimonies as
regards to nature of injury is concerned, has remained unshaken.
One of the medical experts has flatly denied injury to be possible by
fall, one expert has categorically stated that injuries are connected.
Consequently, ocular account supported by medical evidence, is
sufficient to accept the prosecution version. There is background to
{15} CRI APPEAL 1 OF 2005
the occurrence. That much part is not at all challenged by defence.
17. Perused the judgment under challenge. Findings are in
consonance with the evidence. Reasons are assigned for reaching to
the conclusion and as such there is no infraction or error in the
appreciation so as to disturb the findings. As there is no merit in the
appeal, same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
following order :
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2005 stands dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
