Bombay High Court
Ravikant Chandrakant Jatti vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 September, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:38532
Gokhale 1 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1192 OF 2022
Ravikant Chandrakant Jatti ..Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2312 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1192 OF 2022
__________
Mr. Vishwasrao S. Deokar for Appellant.
Mr. Jaydeep D. Mane (Appeared through V.C.) for Respondent
No.2.
Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. The Appellant was the accused before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.83 of 2017. The
learned Judge, vide his Judgment and order dated 17.11.2022
convicted the Appellant for commission of offence punishable
U/s.307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 years
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer
VINOD
BHASKAR
GOKHALE
2 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
imprisonment for one month. The Appellant was acquitted from
the charges U/s.326 of the I.P.C. The Appellant was directed to pay
compensation of Rs.50000/- to the informant within two months
from the date of the order, U/s.357(3) of the Cr.p.c. and in default
the appellant was directed to undergo further imprisonment for six
months. He was granted set off U/s.428 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Heard Mr. Vishwasrao Deokar, learned counsel for the
Appellant, Mr. Jaydeep Mane, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2 and Ms. Ranjana Humane, learned APP for the
State/Respondent.
3. The prosecution case is that, the first informant-PW-8
Deepak Chavan had taken loan of Rs.50000/- from the Appellant.
According to the informant, he had returned around Rs.2 lakhs,
but still the Appellant was demanding the principal amount of
Rs.50000/- and was causing harassment to the informant.
4. On 03.12.2016, the Appellant called the informant to a
secluded spot on the pretext of arranging for loan from a bank, so
that the informant could return the appellant's amount. When both
3 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
of them reached the spot, the Appellant assaulted the informant
with a knife all over his body causing serious injuries. The
Appellant ran away. The informant sought help of some people
who were in the vicinity. They took him to a police chowky. After
that the police sent him to hospital with police yadi. The informant
lost his consciousness because of the injuries. When he regained
consciousness on 05.12.2016, he gave his statement to the police;
resulting in registration of C.R.No.555 of 2016 at Vijapur Naka
police station at 11:50p.m. The investigation was carried out. The
appellant was arrested on 08.12.2016. At his instance, a knife was
recovered from a different spot. It was concealed under a heap of
stones. The Appellant's clothes were recovered at his instance from
his house. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The
seized articles were sent for C.A. examination. At the conclusion of
the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was
committed before the court of Sessions.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses
including the first informant, the panchas, the informant's wife,
the Medical Officer, the police officers and the Investigating
4 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
officers. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial.
According to him, since he had refused to give money to the
informant, he was falsely implicated. He further added that the
injured was working on a temporary job. He demanded money
from others. The informant was addicted to liquor. As the
appellant's father refused to give money to the informant, he
lodged a false complaint against the appellant.
6. The learned Trial Judge considered the evidence, the
defence and the arguments. He convicted and sentenced the
Appellant, as mentioned earlier.
7. The injured Deepak Chavan was examined as PW-8. He
has stated that, in the past, he was working as Conductor in the
City bus. The Appellant's father was working with him. Therefore,
he became acquainted with the appellant. He had taken
Rs.50000/- as a hand-loan from the appellant, on interest. He paid
Rs.2 lakhs in that connection, but even then, the appellant was
asking him to pay the principal amount of Rs.50000/-.
8. On 03.12.2016, the Appellant made a phone call and
told PW-8 Deepak to come near a temple at Vijapur Naka along
5 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
with the documents. He told PW-8 that he would give him loan
from a bank for Rs.5 lakh. He further told PW-8 that the Bank
Manager's house was in that area. PW-8 went to that spot at about
7:00p.m. The Appellant came there. They started walking towards
Ramling Nagar. They reached a school. It was around 8:30p.m.
The Appellant made a phone call to Manager. PW-8 had brought
Rs.10000/-, his passbooks, cheque book and Aadhaar Card. The
Appellant pointed somewhere saying that the Manager was coming
there. In the meantime, the Appellant started assaulting him on his
back, hand and stomach. After the assault, he ran away. PW-8
came on the road by walking. The people around that area took
him to Vijapur Naka police station. The police took him to Civil
Hospital. PW-8 had become unconscious. He regained his
consciousness on 05.12.2016 and then he lodged his F.I.R. The
F.I.R. is produced on record at Exhibit-29. The witness further
deposed that, he identified the Appellant in the test identification
parade. He identified the weapon knife produced in the Court. His
own clothes were seized by the police. He identified them in the
Court.
6 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
In the cross-examination, he deposed that, he knew the
appellant's father since 1992 and from then onwards he was
acquainted with the appellant. He had no documentary evidence
to show that he had taken loan of Rs.50000/- from the appellant.
He had not made any complaint about the appellant demanding
Rs.50000/-, though, he had repaid more than that i.e. Rs.2 lakhs.
He had taken that amount for his business. He had not made entry
in any notebook. There were financial transactions between him
and the appellant since 8 to 9 years. Except this dispute of
Rs.50000/- there was no other dispute between them. They were
discussing this for about a month. He denied the suggestion that
there was no light near the spot. After the assault he had fallen
down. Then he came on the road which was at the distance of 10
minutes walk. He did not know the persons who brought him to
the police station. When he reached Vijapur naka police station,
the police asked him about the incident and he informed them
about the incident. The police took him to the hospital in their van.
At that time, he was unconscious. His wife and son reached the
hospital at around 9:00p.m. to 9:15p.m. after the police had
7 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
informed them. He denied the suggestion that, after deliberation
for about 3 to 5 days, he lodged the F.I.R. He denied the suggestion
that unknown persons assaulted him and took away the amount of
Rs.10000/-, the passbook and other documents which he was
carrying. The test identification parade was conducted in the
presence of the Tahsildar.
9. The F.I.R. produced on record at Exhibit-29 substantially
corroborates the informant's case. In that F.I.R. the appellant is
mentioned as Jatti's elder son. The F.I.R. was lodged at 11:50p.m.
on 05.12.2016 after the Medical Officer gave an endorsement that
the informant was conscious and was in a position to give a
statement.
10. Dr. Kushal Malwade was examined as PW-6. He was
attached to Civil Hospital, Solapur as a Casualty Medical Officer
since 13.10.2021. Dr. Avinash Gaikwad who had examined PW-8
in this case was not working in their hospital at the time of PW-6's
deposition. His whereabouts were not known. Therefore, PW-6
Dr. Kushal deposed on the basis of the record available with their
8 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
hospital in respect of the MLC No.22873. He deposed that the
patient named Deepak Chavan was examined on 03.12.2016 at
9:15p.m. by Dr. Avinash Gaikwad. He was brought with police yadi
at around 8:45p.m. He had sustained 10 injuries as follows:
I. Stab injury on right side of neck of size 5cm x
2cm x 1cm.
II. Stab injury on left sub areolar region of size 2cm
x 2cm x 2cm.
III. Stab injury on above umbiliecus of size 4cm x
2cm x 2cm.
IV. Stab injury on left hypo hychondrium of size 2cm
x 1cm x 2cm.
V. Stab injury on left lumbar of size 2cm x 2cm x
2cm.
VI. Stab injury on left iliac fossa of size 2cm x 2cm x
1cm.
VII. Stab injury on left axilla of size 2cm x 1cm x 2cm.
VIII. Stab injury on left scapular region of size 2cm x
1cm x 2cm.
IX. Stab injury on right lumbar back region of size
2cm x 1cm x 2cm.
X. Stab injury on left scapular region of size 2cm x
2cm x 1cm.
These injuries were caused by a sharp weapon within
24 hours of the examination. The injury Nos.2 to 7 were grievous.
9 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
He added that, all the injuries were dangerous to life.
The C.T. scan of thorax revealed the following injuries:
I. Lungs -
i. ground glass area are noted in apico
posterior segment of left upper lobe
suggestive of pulmonary contusion /
hemorrhage (considering history of
trauma) -
ii. Ground glass areas also noted in basal
segment of left lower lobe and right lower
lobe.
II. Pleura -
i. Hyperdense collection with maximum
depth of 1.3cm. is noted in left pleural
space suggestive of heamothorax.
ii. Air attenuation seen in left pleural space
suggestive of pneumothorax.
III. Soft Tissue -
i. Surgical emphysema noted over bilateral
chest wall, lower neck and left paraspinal
region.
The C.T. scan of abdomen revealed the following
injuries:
I. Air pocket are noted under parietal peritonium
suggestive of pneumoperitonium.
II. Extensive air is seen in inter muscular plane
alongwith left lateral abdominal wall.
10 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
III. Herniation omentum is seen through the
umblicus suggestive of umblicus hernia.
PW-8 Deepak was admitted and had undergone
exploratory laprotomy. He was discharged on 13.12.2016. The
medical certificate has signature of Dr. Avinash Gaikwad. It is
produced on record at Exhibit-34.
In the cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that the
patient was conscious and oriented when he was brought to the
hospital. At that time, he had not stated the name of the person
who had assaulted him. He stated that, some of the injuries were
similar and the others were different. There was no mention, as to
whether the injury was clean cut or it was irregular injury, in the
certificate.
11. PW-1 Chandrashekhar Shivsharan was a pancha in
whose presence the clothes of the injured Deepak were seized.
That panchanama is produced on record at Exhibit-14. He was also
a pancha for the spot panchanama. Three photographs of the spot
were produced on record at Article C, C-1 and C-2.
11 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
In the cross-examination, he deposed that the clothes
were kept in a carry bag. He and the other pancha had reached the
police station. He admitted that, he had not read the contents of
the panchanama.
12. PW-2 Ramsing Pawar was a pancha who was present
when the clothes and knife was recovered at the instance of the
Appellant. The panchanama for seizure of the Appellant's clothes
was produced on record at Exhibit-16 and memorandum
panchanama and recovery of knife panchanama is produced on
record at Exhibit-17. The clothes were produced by the Appellant
from his house and knife was recovered from a place near a
school. It was concealed under a heap of stones. Those two
panchanamas are produced on record at Exhibit-16 and 17
respectively.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that the spot
from where the knife was recovered was open and was accessible
to all. However, he added that, it was kept under the stones. In the
memorandum statement, the Appellant had not stated as to at
12 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
what place the knife was concealed by him The C.A. reports
produced by the prosecution through the evidence of the
investigating officer at Exhibit-45, 46 and 47 show that there was
blood of the blood group 'B' on the knife and on the clothes of the
injured Deepak. The prosecution had not taken care to lead proper
evidence in respect of seizure of clothes of the informant. Linking
evidence to show as to how the clothes were collected from the
hospital, who had collected them and who had brought them to
the police station is missing. The panchas had merely signed that
panchanama. The clothes of the injured were already kept in a
carry bag when the panchas had gone to the police station.
Similarly, the knife was produced from an open space which was
accessible to all. It is not explained as to the nature of heap of
stones under which it was kept and whether it could be within the
Appellant's exclusive knowledge. Therefore, reasonable doubt is
created regarding the case of the prosecution that blood of the
injured was found on the knife recovered at the instance of the
Appellant. Therefore, to that extent, I am excluding this
circumstance from further discussion.
13 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
13. PW-3 Savita Chavan was the wife of injured Deepak
Chavan. Her evidence is only to the extend that when she went to
the civil hospital, Deepak was not in a position to speak. He
regained his consciousness on 05.12.2016 and then he had told
her that Jatti's son had assaulted him. Then, he had lodged the
F.I.R.
In the cross-examination, she admitted that, her
husband was suspended on two occasions in the past because of
his addiction to liquor or embezzlement of money.
14. PW-4 Abhijeet Umbare and PW-5 Sagar Sangave had
taken Deepak to Vijapur naka police chowky. Their evidence is
similar. Both of them had seen the injured Deepak. He was not in a
position to sit on the motorcycle. Therefore, he was brought to the
police chowky on Umbare's vehicle.
In the cross-examination of PW-4 Umbare, he deposed
that, Deepak had told them that Jatti's elder son had assaulted him
with knife. PW-5 Sagar has also stated that Deepak had told him
that Jatti's son had caused injuries by means of knife.
14 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
15. PW-7 police constable Chetan Pawar had carried the
articles to FSL. As discussed earlier I am not giving much
importance to this recovery and consequent C.A. reports.
16. PW-9 PHC Amit Pawar had produced the logbook when
the police had gone to the spot on 13.12.2016. The logbook is
produced on record at Exhibit-31.
17. PW-10 PHC Mukund Chavan had given yadi to the
injured Deepak and had recorded his F.I.R. on 05.12.2016.
18. PW-11 API Swapnali Devkate was the first investigating
officer. She had recorded the supplementary statement of Deepak.
In her cross-examination, she deposed that when the
injured was brought to the police station, she herself was present.
At that time, Deepak had informed about the incident to the
concerned police, however, she did not inquire whether any entry
was made in the station diary regarding the same. She had
conducted the investigation upto 08.12.2016.
19. PW-12 API Ravindra Sangale was the I.O. who had
15 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
conducted the investigation from 08.12.2016 onwards. He has
deposed about the recovery of the clothes of the appellant,
recovery of the knife and conducting the spot panchanama. He has
produced the C.A. reports on record.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that, he had not
taken any action against the police officer who had not made any
entry in the station diary. He deposed that the spot of incident was
a secluded place and in that area the incidents of theft and robbery
had taken place.
20. Learned counsel for the Appellant made the following
submissions.
There was no evidence of loan transaction. The F.I.R.
mentions that three persons were coming towards them but there
is no investigation in that behalf. The statements of those three
persons were not recorded. Even their identity is not established.
The documents and the money which the informant had carried
was not referred to anywhere subsequently in the investigation.
They were not recovered. The informant was in service. He was
16 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
not conducting any business, therefore, there was no question of
the informant asking for any loan from the Appellant. There was
no prior complaint of harassment made by the injured Deepak to
any one. He submitted that, therefore, this is a false case.
21. Learned APP submitted that the Appellant had motive to
assault the informant. There is direct evidence of PW-8 Deepak
regarding the incident. There is no reason to doubt his deposition.
The nature of injuries shows that it was a serious incident and the
offence U/s.307 of the I.P.C. is made out. According to her, the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Learned counsel appearing for the first informant
submitted that the ocular evidence of PW-8 Deepak is corroborated
by the medical evidence and, therefore, the conviction be upheld.
23. I have considered these submissions. In this case, there is
a direct evidence of PW-8 Deepak. He had described the incident in
detail. He was knowing the Appellant since 1992 as the Appellant's
father was his colleague. There is no scope for arguing or holding
that assault was committed by an unknown person. Significantly,
17 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
the Appellant himself in the answers given in the statement
U/s.313 of the Cr.p.c. has admitted that the Appellant was
implicated falsely because he refused to give the money to Deepak.
All this shows that the Appellant was known to the informant
Deepak and therefore, it was not a case of assault by an unknown
person. According to Deepak, in the F.I.R. he has mentioned that
Jatti's elder son had assaulted him. His version is supported by PW-
4 and PW-5 who had taken him to the police chowky. Thus,
immediately, at the first instance, the informant had disclosed
about the assault caused by the Appellant to these independent
witnesses. Therefore, there was no deliberation or afterthought on
his part to implicate the appellant falsely. In this view of the
matter, the police officer not taking down this information in
writing immediately when he was taken to the police station on
03.12.2016 will not matter because the priority was to take him to
the hospital to save his life. The record shows that till 05.12.2016
he was not in a position to give any statement and, therefore, as
soon as he regained his consciousness, his statement was recorded,
in which, he had stated that Jatti's elder son had assaulted him.
18 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
Therefore, the identity and role of the present Appellant is
sufficiently established, as soon as, it was possible for the police to
record Deepak's statement. Since the identity of the appellant was
not in dispute, there was no necessity to conduct the test
identification parade. There is no substance in the submissions that
identity of three unknown persons was important as, according to
the version given by Deepak in the F.I.R., three persons were
approaching him at that spot when he had gone there with the
Appellant. It is important to note that, in the substantive
deposition before the Court the informant PW-8 had not
mentioned anything about those three persons. In any case, even
in the F.I.R., his case was that when those three persons were
approaching him, the Appellant immediately started assaulting
him all over his body. Therefore, this particular aspect will not help
the appellant. The deposition of PW-8 Deepak is clear and he has
described the incident in detail.
24. The medical evidence shows that the informant had
suffered 10 injuries, out of which, injuries Nos.2 to 7 referred to
herein above were described as grievous injuries. Apart from that,
19 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
the injury on the right side of his neck of the size 5cm x 2cm x 1cm
was on the vital part i.e. neck. The internal damage was
mentioned by PW-6 Dr. Kushal. This injury shows that, there was
clear attempt to commit murder of the injured Deepak. Though,
the Doctor, who had actually conducted the examination, was not
available, this evidence is given on the basis of the record available
with the hospital. It was maintained in regular course of business.
This evidence is admissible and the prosecution has proved that
the injured Deepak had suffered those injuries which were life
threatening injuries.
25. Thus, in this case, the evidence of PW-8 Deepak is
cogent, clear and wholly reliable. Just because in the past he was
suspended on the charges of addiction of liquor or embezzlement
of money does not mean that the incident is not true or that he has
implicated the Appellant falsely.
26. PW-8 Deepak's evidence is sufficiently corroborated by
the medical evidence. These are the strong pieces of evidence
against the Appellant. The prosecution, therefore, has proved its
20 of 20 9-apeal-1192-22 (J)
case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Judge has given
sufficient reasons for imposing the sentence of seven years.
Looking at the nature of the injuries which are described herein
above, I do not see any reason to take a different view to show
leniency in reducing the sentence imposed on the Appellant. With
the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
Judgment and order.
27. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed. With disposal of
the Appeal, the interim application is also disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
