Bombay High Court
Madhukar S/O Kashiram Surpam vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Awadhutwadi ... on 25 August, 2025
Author: Anil L Pansare
Bench: Anil L Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:8380-DB
Judgment apeal677.19
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 677 OF 2019.
Madhukar s/o Kashiram Surpam,
Aged about 55 years, Resident of
Parwa, Tahsil and District Yavatmal. ... APPELLANT.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Awadhutwadi,
Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENT.
---------------------------------
Ms H. Kavi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. U.R. Phasate, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
----------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L PANSARE AND
M.M. NERLIKAR, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 18.08.2025.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 25.08.2025.
JUDGMENT (Per M.M. Nerlikar, J).
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
2
The Appellant - Madhukar Kashiram Surpam (original
accused) who is convicted by judgment and order dated 28.06.2019
delivered by the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case
No.60/2018 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with
payment of fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months, has filed this Appeal
under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging
their aforesaid conviction and sentence. It is informed that the
accused is in jail.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as under :
That on 24.03.2018 a first information report came to
be lodged by the informant - Krushna Laxman Atram (P.W.1),
stating that his younger brother deceased Munna Atram was residing
with his grandmother Vithabai in village Bhosa. Deceased Munna
was doing the work of Mandap decoration and was also doing labour
work in weekly market, near Hanuman Temple at Yavatmal, as and
when the work of Mandap decoration was not available. It is further
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
3
stated by the informant that he knows the accused Madhukar
Surpam, as he was wandering in the weekly market at Yavatmal,
when he used to visit the said market to meet his younger brother
deceased Munna. Deceased Munna and accused Madhukar were
addicted to liquor.
3. It is further stated that on 24.03.2018 at about 2 to 2.30
p.m. both the deceased and accused were standing near vegetable
stall of Akash Wagade, where a scuffle took place between them on
account of consuming liquor. Madhukar had threatened the
deceased that he should wait there, and accused will see him, and he
thereafter went away. It is further alleged that after some time
Madhukar came near the vegetable stall of Akash with a knife in his
hand and gave knife blows on the chest and stomach of the deceased
Munna. Immediately the deceased fell on the ground and died.
Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot of incident. The
informant came to know about this incident from his wife,
accordingly he rushed towards Vasantrao Naik Government Medical
College and Hospital, Yavatmal and thereafter lodged the report with
the Police Station Awdhutwadi, Yavatmal (Exh.12) which was
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
4
registered as first information report No.336/2018 (Exh.13) for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This
report was recorded and registered by API Shri Dhere. He visited the
place of occurrence and found the dead body with bodily injuries
lying in a pool of blood on the road. Spot panchnama was drawn.
He collected simple earth and blood stained earth from the spot.
The investigation was thereafter handed over to API Amol Barapatre
(P.W.5).
4. The investigating officer has prepared inquest
panchnama (Exh.18), sent the body for postmortem examination. He
arrested the accused. He recorded statements of witnesses. Blood
stained clothes of the deceased were seized under seizure
panchnama (Exh.19). Similarly while in custody, upon disclosure by
the accused, blood stained clothes of the accused and knife used in
commission of the crime, came to be seized under seizure
panchnama (Exh.22). Seized articles were forwarded to the
Chemical Analyzer, and the report of analysis was received by the
investigating officer and they are stated to be at Exh.29 to 32.
Postmortem report (Exh.34) was also received. After completion of
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
5
the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal, who committed the case for trial to
the Sessions Court. Charge was framed vide Exh.4. It was read over
and explained to the accused in vernacular language. The appellant/
accused pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. The defence of
the accused is of total denial. He pleaded that P.W.2 Akash Wagade
and P.W.3 Mangesh Neware are having suspicion that the accused
had given tips to the police in the matter of their illegal gambling
business and upon such tips, the police had conducted raid, and
therefore, they have spoken against him.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. P.W.1 - Krushna
Atram is brother of the deceased Munna, who has lodged the first
information report. P.W.2 - Akash Wagade, is the eye witness to the
incident. Similarly, P.W.3 -Mangesh Neware is also an eye witness to
the incident. P.W.4 - Vishnu Wanawe is a panch witness to various
panchnamas, whereas P.W.5 Amol Barapatre is the Investigating
Officer. Lastly, P.W.6 - Sharad Kuchewar, is the Autopsy Surgeon
who has conducted autopsy.
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
6
6. After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court
was pleased to convict the accused Madhukar and sentenced him to
suffer life imprisonment as stated above.
7. We have heard Ms H. Kavi, learned Counsel h/f. For Ms
P.Rane, Advocate appointed for the appellant/accused and Shri U.R.
Phasate, learned A.P.P. for the respondent /State.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted that the appellant/accused is falsely implicated in the
aforesaid crime. The first information report is registered on the
basis of hearsay information, which was supplied by the wife of the
informant. The appellant has not committed murder of the deceased
Munna. She further submits that some unknown person might have
committed murder of deceased Munna. She further submits that the
testimony of so called eye witnesses - P.W.2 and P.W.3, cannot be
relied on, as there are material contradictions and omissions in their
evidence. She further submitted that as there was enmity between
the appellant/ accused and P.W.2 and P.W.3, they have falsely
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
7
implicated him in the said crime. It is also submitted that the
testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 does not inspire confidence, as their
presence on the spot itself is doubtful.
9. She further submits that as regards recovery under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, it cannot be
believed for the simple reason that in the memorandum panchnama,
the articles are shown to be recovered from the pipe situated at back
side of the State Excise Department. Whereas P.W.4, panch witness,
has deposed that accused had produced knife and clothes from grass,
and therefore, consequential sending of the articles i.e. knife and
clothes of the accused is of no use, since there are material
discrepancies in respect of place of recovery. In this background it is
submitted that since there is no evidence to connect the
appellant/accused with the alleged crime, she prayed for acquittal of
the appellant/accused.
10. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. vehemently
submitted that it is an open and shut case. There is direct evidence
against the appellant/accused, as the incident is witnessed by P.W.2 -
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
8
Akash Wagade and P.W.3 - Mangesh Neware, who have stick up to
their version in the examination-in-chief and their testimony is not
shaken in the cross-examination. He further submits that the death
of deceased Munna was a homicidal death, which was duly proved
by examining P.W.6 Dr.Sharad Kuchewar, wherein he opined that
the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased were
antemortem. He further submits that two serious blows were
inflicted with the deadly weapon like knife, due to which the
deceased died on the spot itself. He further submits that apart from
direct evidence, there is circumstantial evidence in the nature of
recovery of weapon-knife having blood stains on it, so also the
clothes of the accused were seized under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, at his behest only. It is further submitted by the
learned A.P.P. that as the recovery under Section 27 was effected at
the behest of the appellant/accused - Madhukar, those articles were
forwarded for chemical analysis, and those articles were having
blood stains on it. Accordingly, he submits that the chemical
analyzer's report connects the accused Madhukar with the crime, as
the blood group of deceased Munna was "A", which was detected on
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
9
the knife and clothes which are seized from the appellant/accused
and used while committing murder of deceased Munna.
11. The learned A.P.P. further submits that all the witness
on which the prosecution has relied, have stickup to their version,
and nothing is brought on the record in their cross-examination in
order to disbelieve their testimony. Accordingly he supported the
judgment and order of conviction and prayed for dismissal of the
appeal
12. Upon careful perusal of the record, after appreciating
the evidence led by the parties and after hearing the parties,
following points arise for our determination.
(1) Whether the prosecution proved that the death of
deceased Munna is a homicidal death ?
(2) Whether the accused Madhukar has committed murder
of deceased Munna Atram on 24.03.2018 at about 1
p.m. at weekly market, near Hanuman Temple,
Yavatmal by inflicting knife blows on his chest and
stomach, with an intention and knowledge to cause his
death, which is an offence punishable under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code ?
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
10
REASONS
Point No.1.
13. In order to prove the factum of homicidal death, the
prosecution has examined P.W.6 Dr. Sharad Kuchewar at Exh.33,
who deposed that he along with Dr. Alone had conducted the
postmortem of the deceased Munna and found the following
external injuries.
1] Stab wound present over left side of chest obliquely
placed of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep. The center
of the obliquely placed is 7 cm from left nipple and 11
cm from right nipple medially, 12 cm below
superasternal notch, both angles are acute. Margins are
clean cut and reddish. No evidence of oozing of any
fluid.
Trace of injury-skin-subcutaneous tissues-pectoralis
major muscle cutting 3rd rib and 3rd intercostal space-
pericardium-right ventricle.
2] Evidence of stab wound present just medial to right
anterior superior iliac spine of size 4.5 cm x 2.8 cm x
cavity deep, 12 cm below umbilicus on right side,
vertically placed, upper angle is obtuse and lower angle
is acute. Margins are clean cut and reddish. Evidence
of hemiation of underlying peritoneal fat and intestine.
Track of injury-skin-subcutaneous tissues-rectus abdomis
muscle and transverse abdomis muscle-peritoneus-
mesentery-ascending colon.
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
11
3] Evidence of multiple abrasion present over the dorsal
aspect of proximal interphalangeal jints of all fingers or
right hand and left thumb of size ranging from 0.2 cm x
0.2 cm to 0.5 cm. Reddish in colour.
He has deposed that all the above injuries were
antemortem in nature and were fresh. He found the following
external injuries on the body of deceased Munna.
1] 3rd rib and 3rd intercostal space on left side are cut
corresponding to injury No.1 mentioned in column
No.17.
2] Evidence of 518 gm of clotted blood and 250 ml of fluid
blood present in left pleutral cavity.
3] There was a cut to pericardium corresponding to injury
No.1 mentioned in column No.17.
4] There was stab wound injury present over right ventrical
anteriorly corresponding to injury No.1 mentioned in
column No.17.
5] There was cut injury to the mesentery and ascending
colon corresponding to injury No.2 mentioned in column
No.17.
14. P.W.6 has deposed that injury nos.1 and 2 mentioned
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
12
in column no.17, are corresponding to internal injury mentioned in
column no.20 and 21 of the postmortem report, and those injuries
are collectively and individually sufficient in ordinary course to
cause death. He opined that the cause of death is shock and
hemorrhage due to stab injuries to heart. In respect to injury nos. 1
to 3 and the corresponding injuries, he has stated that they can be
caused by a weapon like knife, which is marked as Article 'A'.
15. There is no much dispute on the issue that deceased
Munna died homicidal death. Even the defence has not disputed this
fact, however, the only defence seems to be that, some unknown
person assaulted deceased Munna. Considering the above evidence,
we can safely come to the conclusion that the death of deceased
Munna is a homicidal death.
Point No.2.
16. So far as this point is concerned, the prosecution has
relied on 2 eye witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3.
P.W.2 - Akash in his deposition stated that he runs a
vegetable stall in weekly market at Yavatmal. He was knowing
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
13
deceased Munna, so also accused Madhukar. He has deposed that
on 24.03.2018, when he was in his vegetable stall in the weekly
market, at about 2 to 2.30 p.m. deceased Munna and accused
Madhukar were standing near his vegetable stall. At that point of
time, a dispute arose between them on account of consuming liquor.
Accused Madhukar threatened deceased Munna by uttering the
words 'I will see you'. Thereafter Madhukar went away. P.W.2
Akash went to bring water in the temple, and when he returned, he
found that again the dispute is going in between the accused and the
deceased. Accused Madhukar gave knife blows on chest and
stomach of deceased Munna, because of which he fell down. Blood
started oozing from his chest and stomach, and thereafter, Madhukar
ran away from the spot. Munna died on the spot.
17. So far as the testimony of P.W.3 Mangesh is concerned,
he deposed that the incident took place on 24.03.2018 between 2 to
2.30 pm. when he was taking lunch in the Bajrangbali temple. He
saw that a dispute was going between them near the vegetable shop
of Akash. He further deposed that people resolved the dispute
between them. He further deposed that after some time accused
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
14
Madhukar brought a knife from chicken shop and gave blows on the
chest and stomach of deceased Madhukar. Blood was oozing from
the chest and stomach of deceased Munna, who fell down and died
on the spot.
18. Thus these two eye witnesses have specifically stated
that on 24.03.2018 the incident took place in weekly market, near
vegetable stall of P.W.2 Akash. They have further deposed that the
accused Madhukar gave knife blows on chest and stomach of the
deceased Madhukar. Immediately he fell down and died on the spot
itself. In cross-examination nothing was brought on record in order
to discard their testimony. It was however, tried to brought on
record that the witness P.W.2 has no vegetable stall in the weekly
market, however, the cross-examination further shows that P.W.2
did not made any attempt to caught hold the accused on the spot or
obstructed the accused while he was assaulting deceased Munna. It
is to be noted that P.W.2 Akash is an independent witness, and
therefore, his testimony would stand on a higher pedestal. Not only
that the testimony of P.W.3 Mangesh was also on the same line.
However, nothing was brought on record in the cross-examination to
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
15
disbelieve his testimony. On the contrary, the testimony of both
these witnesses, who are independent, inspires confidence as their
testimony is not shaken in the cross-examination, and they have
specifically deposed that accused Madhukar gave knife blows on the
chest and stomach of deceased Munna.
19. So far as other evidence is concerned, it is circumstantial
in nature, which connects the accused with the commission of the
crime, such as recovery of knife and clothes under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act at the behest of accused Madhukar. To prove
this fact, the prosecution has examined P.W.4 - Vishnu Wanve, who
is a Panch. He has specifically stated that accused produced knife
and clothes kept by him in the grass, accordingly police has seized
the said knife and clothes in presence of the panchas and prepared
seizure panchnama. In cross-examination, this witness denied the
suggestion that the accused did not gave memorandum in his
presence and accordingly no weapon and clothes were produced
before the police. He further admits that he had seen the knife and
clothes firstly at the police station and secondly before the Court. It
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
16
is to be further noted that we have perused Exh.22 Memorandum
panchnama, wherein the accused is said to have taken out a knife
and clothes from the pipe situated behind the Excise Office.
However, in the cross-examination of P.W.4, this fact was not
brought on record by the defence, which runs contrary to the
evidence of P.W.4 in examination-in-chief. He has deposed that the
accused produced knife and clothes kept by him in the grass.
20. P.W.5 - Amol Barapatre is the investigating officer. His
evidence on this point is consistent with what is recorded in the
memorandum panchnama [Exh.22]. The investigating officer has
deposed that the accused produced an iron knife and clothes from
one cement pipe situated at back side of building of State Excise
Department. Accordingly, the investigating officer seized the said
clothes and knife in presence of panchas.
Though there are some discrepancies in respect of
recovery of knife and clothes, as can be gathered from the
depositions of P.W.4 and 5, however, that fact itself will not affect
the case of prosecution for the reason that the evidence of the
investigating officer and the recitals of memorandum panchnama
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
17
[Exh.22] to the extent of recovery is consistent. However, it would
not be fatal to the case of prosecution when defence has failed to
bring on record contradictions in this respect. Therefore, though
some part of evidence of P.W.4 is kept aside, still the fact of recovery
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was duly proved by
P.W.5, which is consistent with the memorandum Panchnama
Exh.22, and therefore, this vital piece of evidence can be believed. It
is to be noted that the recovery was effected from the place which is
in the special knowledge of the accused - Madhukar.
21. Further the evidence in the nature of chemical analyzer's
report is concerned, the weapon i.e. knife which was seized, so also
clothes of the accused were stained with human blood of group 'A',
which was of the deceased. The C.A. report [Exh. 32] goes to show
that the blood group of deceased Munna was 'A', and the blood
found on the knife is also of group 'A', so also the blood stains found
on the clothes of the accused were of group 'A'. Thus, we have no
hesitation to hold that the blood stains on the weapon and clothes
were of the deceased Munna, and therefore, it is crystal clear that
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
18
the accused Madhukar has committed murder of deceased Munna by
inflicting knife blows on the vital part of his body i.e. chest and
stomach. It is also to be noted that P.W.6 medical officer has
specifically mentioned about the parts of body on which the injuries
are inflicted. He has stated that injuries found on the body of
deceased are collectively sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death.
22. Therefore, considering the evidence of eye witnesses
[P.W.2 and P.W.3], further evidence of P.W.6 Autopsy Surgeon,
evidence of recovery of weapon and clothes, further having human
blood stains on those articles of blood group 'A', which is of the
deceased Munna, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution
has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
Madhukar has committed murder of the deceased Munna. We
accordingly hold that no error is committed by the learned trial
Court in convicting the appellant. The findings recorded by it are
based on sound reasonings, and therefore, we decline to interfere
with the same. Hence, the following order.
Rgd.
Judgment apeal677.19
19
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Muddemal property be dealt with in accordance with law.
23. Fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified and paid as
per Rules.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/08/2025 12:18:29
