Bombay High Court
Sunil Haridas Sugandhe vs The State Of Mah on 18 September, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:21936
{1} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004
1. Sunil s/o Haridas Sugandhe
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Chauphuli - Bondgavahan,
Tq.Mahur, Dist.Nanded. ..Appellant
(Orig. Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Sindkhed, Tq.Mahur,
Dist.Nanded.
2. Ravindra s/o Babus Gaikwad
Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. Chauphuli - Bondgavahan,
Tq.Mahur, Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents
(R.No.2 Complainant)
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2005
. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Sindkhed, Tq.Mahur,
Dist.Nanded. ..Appellant
Versus
. Sunil s/o Haridas Sugande
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Chouphuli, Taluka - Mahur,
Dist.Nanded. ..Respondent
(Ori. Accused)
{2} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
.....
Advocate for Appellant - Accused : Mr. B.N.Patil
APP for Respondent - State : Mr.S.M.Ganachari
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
DATE : 18 SEPTEMBER, 2024
JUDGMENT :
-
1. In this appeal there is challenge to the judgment and order of
conviction rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded dated
29-09-2004 in Sessions Case No.77 of 2004 holding present appellant
guilty for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months
and to pay fine.
PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF
2. Informant Ravindra on 29-06-2003 was returning from the
field after labouring through out day i.e. at around 05:00 p.m. That
time, present appellant also came across him carrying green fodder
and a sickle in his hand. Appellant initially gave a push to informant
and on being questioned to that count, after abusing victim, he
assaulted informant with the sickle on the left side of the neck.
{3} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
Second blow was inflicted on the back when informant had bent
down. Informant managed to reach village in bleeding condition.
Initially with the help of Ramrao Mujmule and Prabhakar Khadse, he
approached Police and therefore, was referred to hospital, where on
his statement, report exh.12 was entertained and made basis of
registration of crime.
Said crime was investigated by PW9 Maroti Gaynoji Thorat
(API) and after gathering sufficient evidence, accused came to be
chargesheeted and tried by learned Sessions Judge, Nanded vide
Sessions Case No.77 of 2004 i.e. for commission of offence under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
On appreciating evidence of in all nine witnesses and
documentary evidence comprising of report, panchanama, medical
papers, learned trial Judge recorded conviction but only for offence
under Section 324 of the IPC i.e. vide judgment dated 29-09-2004
and the same is now taken exception to by filing instant appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant :
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is
false implication. That there is no convincing independent evidence.
{4} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
That except testimony of informant, there is no distinct piece of
evidence in support of the charge. He pointed out that infact
incident had taken place all of a sudden. He pointed out that even
appellant had suffered injury. That PW2 Uddhav is a got up witness
as he was not named in the FIR and therefore, he questions findings
reached at by the learned trial Judge. Consequently, he prays to
quash and set aside the impugned judgment. In the alternative,
learned Counsel submitted that considering the lapse of time,
sentence be reduced to already undergone.
On behalf of State :
4. Taking strong exception to the above submissions and further
praying for enhancement of sentence, learned APP pointed out that
there is clear, cogent and convincing evidence. According to learned
APP, initially there was charge of Section 307 of the IPC. He took this
Court through the evidence of injured informant and submitted that
there were two blows not one and therefore, intention of appellant
was explicit. That deadly weapon like sickle has been used. That
sites of injuries are also vital. He pointed out that informant was
required to be admitted in hospital and treated for almost 25 days.
Therefore, according to him, in view of testimony of PW6
{5} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
Dr.Kumbhare, Medical Officer's evidence, more particularly,
paragraph 3, case infact invited and attracted offence under Section
307 of the IPC, however, learned trial Court acquitted accused from
the said charge and even while recording conviction for Section 324
of the IPC, sentence awarded is barely six months, which is meager
and hence, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the State for
enhancing the sentence.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
5. In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as
nine witnesses. Their status and role is as under :
PW1 Ravindra Bapus Gaikwad is informant injured. His evidence is
at exh.11.
PW2 Uddhav Kachru Ranvir is alleged eye witness. His evidence is at
exh.15.
PW3 Sahebrao Amrita Gaikwad is spot pancha. His evidence is at
exh.16.
PW4 Suresh Devanna Dhumbadwad is pancha to seizure of clothes
exh.19. His evidence is at exh.18.
PW5 Ramrao Govindrao Mujmule is the witness, who took injured to
hospital.
{6} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
PW6 Dr.Naraj Shyamsunder Kumbhare is the Medical Officer, who
examined, treated injured and issued medical certificate.
PW7 Bhimrao Yadav Raut is pancha to memorandum of
disclosure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act i.e.
vide panchanama exh.29.
PW8 Ashok Hussenna Navalkonda is second pancha to
memorandum of disclosure and seizure of sickle.
PW9 Maroti Gaynoji Thorat is the Investigating Officer.
APPRECIATION AND ANALYSIS
6. Here evidence of PW1 Ravindra, PW2 Uddhav and PW6
Dr.Kumbhare is crucial.
On careful analysis and appreciating evidence of PW1
Ravindra, informant, it seems that incident had taken place on
29-06-2003 at around 05:00 p.m. According to informant, while he
was returning from field, on his way, he came across accused, who
was carrying green fodder for she-goats and was also carrying a
sickle. He deposed that while crossing his way, appellant gave him a
push and on being questioned to that extent, after abusing in filthy
language, a sickle blow was given on left side of the neck of
informant. Witness stated that after suffering the blow, he fell giddy
{7} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
and so he bent down and at that time, second blow was given on his
back. His back injury started bleeding. He managed to reach village
and to the house of Datta Karamkar. Ramrao Mujmule and
Prabhakar Khadse took him to Police Station and from there to
Mahur Hospital, where his statement was recorded vide exh.12. He
also placed on record discharge card exh.13. He identified clothes on
his person on the date of incident.
On visiting his cross-examination it shows that initially he is
asked about the location of house of accused, about one Gautam,
who is brother-in-law and about brother of Gautam namely Suresh
and whether there were any illicit relations with another lady to
which witness has denied knowing about it. In further cross-
examination he has answered that Uddhav Ranvir, who was also
grazing she-goats, came to the rescue.
7. PW2 Uddhav Kachru Ranvir is another star witness for
prosecution and he in his evidence at exh.15 stated that at around
05:00 p.m. on 29-06-2003, he saw accused coming with a sickle in
his right hand and fodder in the other. That time, informant was
coming from his field and proceeding to the opposite direction. He
claims that he saw accused giving push to informant while passing
{8} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
and then he heard informant giving life threats. He saw blow being
given by sickle and when informant bent down, another blow was
given on the back. He deposed that informant was taken to Police
Station in Bullock Cart by Ramrao Mujmule, Madhav Khadse and
others and informant was treated as indoor patient.
In cross-examination it is brought that at the time of incident it
was drizzling. He answered that he saw incident from a distance of
20-25 feet.
8. PW6 Dr.Naraj Shyamsundar Kumbhare is the medical expert
and he is examined at exh.22 and he testified that he examined and
treated injured and noticed following injuries :
i) Incised wound over the left side of neck size 10 c.m. x
1/4 c.m. sharp margin age of injury within 24 hours. Type
weapon hard and sharp. Injury was grievous.
ii) Stab wound back side of the chest. 7 c.m. x 5 c.m.
sharp margin. Age of injury within 24 hours. Weapon
sharp, hard. Grievous injury.
He has also opined that injuries are possible by sickle. He has
given measurement and dimension of injuries and also identified
discharge card. In paragraph 3, he has stated that injuries were
{9} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
dangerous to life.
In cross-examination, medical expert is questioned about
history given and he has answered that informant told that accused
had caused injuries to him by sickle. He deposed that there being no
facility of X-Ray and Sonography, patient was referred to Yeotmal
Hospital. Rest is all denial.
9. PW3 Sahebrao is pancha to spot panchanama. PW7 Bhimrao
and PW8 Ashok are panchas to memorandum of disclosure and
seizure of sickle. Their evidence has also remained intact.
10. Therefore, on complete appreciation of above discussed
evidence, here there is positive and convincing evidence that on
29-06-2003, at around 05:00 p.m. both informant and accused
crossed each other. Informant was initially given push and on being
questioned to that extent, present appellant inflicted two blows of
sickle with which he was armed. Testimony of informant PW1
Ravindra that he suffered bleeding injuries is finding support from
both PW2 Uddhav and even PW6 Dr.Kumbhare, Medical Officer, who
examined and treated him. Recovery of sickle is also at the instance
of accused.
{10} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
11. Learned APP prays for enhancement of sentence and is also
aggrieved by acquittal of accused from charge of Section 307 of the
IPC. However, no distinct appeal against acquittal of accused from
the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is preferred by
the State. Therefore, appeal of State only for enhancement remains
for consideration.
12. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to consider that there is
any previous enmity between informant and appellant. Incident had
taken place in the backdrop of informant getting a push while
appellant was crossing him in the way and appellant was carrying
fodder and a sickle. Therefore, as regards to genesis is concerned,
only so much of evidence is of prosecution. No doubt there is injury
on neck, but it is not bleeding one and second injury, which was
bleeding one is on the back. Though PW6 Dr.Kumbhare in his
evidence testified that injury was dangerous, it has not come on
record that it was life threatening. Incident having taken place all of
a sudden, there does not seem to be specific intention or knowledge,
so as to attract charge under Section 307 of the IPC. Considering the
background in which incident took place, nature of injuries, article
used, offence under Section 324 of the IPC definitely made out by
{11} CR APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2004 & ANR
the prosecution.
13. Perused the impugned judgment. It is noticed that findings
recorded by the learned trial Judge are in consonance of evidence.
The view taken by the learned trial Court is the possible view even on
re-appreciation of above evidence. No case being made out for
interference and judgment being infallible, it is required to be
maintained. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
(I) Criminal Appeal No.698 of 2004 is dismissed.
(II) Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2005 is also dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
