Bombay High Court
Shyam Damodar Inchal vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:1461-DB
Gokhale 1 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 453 OF 2018
Shyam Damodar Inchal ..Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2966 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 453 OF 2018
__________
Ms. Suvarna Avhad Vast i/b. Prakash J. Salsingikar for Appellant.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 8 JANUARY 2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)
1. This Appeal is preferred by the original accused in
Sessions Case No.448 of 2013 before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. Vide his Judgment and order
dated 11.05.2017, the learned Judge convicted him. The case
involved commission of murder of two victims Seema Inchal and
Rajendra Rane. Seema was the appellant's wife and Rajendra was
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2025.01.14
10:30:16
+0530
2 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
his friend. At the conclusion of the trial, the Appellant was
convicted for commission of the offence punishable U/s.302 of the
I.P.C. under two separate heads for committing two murders. For
each of these heads, he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of payment of fine
to suffer S.I. for six months. He was also convicted for commission
of offence U/s.324 of the I.P.C. for causing injuries to one Mitesh
and for that offence he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for one
month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was
given set off U/s.428 of the Cr.p.c.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the Appellant was
suspecting that there was illicit relation between Mitesh and the
Appellant's wife. On 07.01.2013, in the afternoon, the Appellant
called Mitesh to his house. The second victim Rajendra
happened to accompany Mitesh to the appellant's house. The
Appellant questioned Mitesh and his own wife about the
relationship. The quarrel took place and it is alleged that the
Appellant stabbed his wife multiple times. He also stabbed
3 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
Rajendra multiple times. But he allowed Mitesh to escape. Mitesh
went to the police station. He was followed by the Appellant. The
Appellant was carrying the murder weapon. He was arrested. His
clothes and the weapon were seized. In the meantime, the police
on the patrolling duty were informed. They went to the spot and
removed the victims to the hospital. The F.I.R. was lodged vide
C.R.No.11 of 2013 at Sakinaka police station, under sections 302
and 307 of the I.P.C. against the Appellant for committing murder
of Seema and Rajendra and also for committing the offence
U/s.307 of the I.P.C. for causing injuries to Mitesh. The
investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed. The
case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. During trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses
including the injured Mitesh, the Appellant's daughter, the pancha
witnesses, the Medical Officers, the victim Seema's father, the
victim Rajendra's wife and the police officers. The defence of the
Appellant, as is reflected from his examination U/s.313 of the
Cr.p.c., was of total denial. The Appellant examined Head
Constable Shivaji Malgunde as DW-1 to prove that he himself had
4 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
suffered injuries in the offence.
4. The learned Judge relied on the evidence of PW-1 who
was an injured eye witness. He considered whether the offence
would fall within any of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the I.P.C.
and ultimately, he reached the conclusion that the Appellant had
committed the offence U/s.302 of the I.P.C. The learned Judge
convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned earlier.
5. PW-1 Mitesh Ghonge is the most important witness in
this case. He has deposed that he was residing at Jogeshwari. He
was working with a company in the marketing department. He
was working as an Agent for that company. His job profile was to
sell holiday packages to the customers. The head office of the
company was at Wadala. It had different branches. The Appellant
was known to him. He identified the Appellant in the Court. The
Appellant used to work with him as a part time job. PW-1 also
knew Rajendra Rane in connection with his business.
6. On 07.01.2013, there was a meeting of Agents in
Rajendra's house. It was held in the morning at Jogeshwari. The
5 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
Appellant and PW-1 attended the meeting. It continued till about
2:45p.m. The Appellant gave two forms to PW-1 for giving them in
their Borivali branch. PW-1 reached that branch at about 3:30p.m.
After some time, Rajendra Rane came to that office. After giving
those forms in that office, PW-1 called the Appellant. The first call
could not get connected. He gave another call. At that time,
though the phone was ringing on the other side, it was not
answered by the Appellant. Within 5 minutes, PW-1 received the
call from the Appellant; who told PW-1 that the second call which
was unanswered was made on the Appellant's wife's phone
number. The Appellant wanted explanation from PW-1 as to why
he called on the phone number of his wife. Therefore, the
Appellant called PW-1 to his house. He was agitated. According to
PW-1, after that, PW-1 and Rajendra Rane started going to the
Appellant's house to meet him. They stopped at Sangharsh Nagar
stop. They went by PW-1's car. The Appellant was waiting near
that stop. Both of them met the Appellant. The Appellant sat in the
car and all of them had a discussion. PW-1 explained to him that
he had three phone numbers of the Appellant and perhaps the
6 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
number on which he had made the phone call was given to him by
the Appellant's wife. PW-1 and Rajendra told the Appellant that
there should not be any misunderstanding and that PW-1 was like
his family. The Appellant then invited both of them to his house.
They went near the Appellant's house. PW-1 parked his car. They
went to the house of the Appellant. The Appellant's children and
wife were taking their meals. The children were sent outside by
the Appellant after their meals.
7. PW-1 then has described the actual incident. The
Appellant put a lock from inside. He slapped his wife and
questioned her as to why she had given that phone number to
PW-1. Though, PW-1 and Rajendra tried to stop him, the Appellant
took his wife in the kitchen. PW-1 heard shouts of the Appellant's
wife. Both of them rushed to the kitchen and saw that the
Appellant was stabbing his wife in the stomach with a knife
causing severe bleeding. She fell down. They tried to catch the
Appellant who started beating both of them. He was very angry. He
gave a blow of knife on the left side of PW-1's stomach causing
bleeding injury. PW-1 also suffered other minor injuries with the
7 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
knife. The Appellant gave knife blows in the stomach of Rajendra
causing serious injuries. Rajendra collapsed on the floor. The
Appellant gave blows with the knife on Rajendra's chest. PW-1
caught the Appellant's hand and told him to open the door. PW-1
has further deposed that the Appellant gave a key of the lock to
him and allowed him to go. The Appellant rushed to Sakinaka
police station. The Appellant followed him to the same police
station with knife in his hand. PW-1 was sent to Rajawadi Hospital,
Ghatkopar. He was admitted there. He took treatment. His
statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. It was treated
as an F.I.R. It is produced on record at Exhibit-14. PW-1's clothes
were seized. He identified his clothes and the knife in the Court.
He came to know that, both, Seema and Rajendra had succumbed
to their injuries.
In the cross-examination, he was asked about some
omissions from his statement given to the police. Those omissions
were in respect of depositing the forms, his two unsuccessful calls
to the appellant, the Appellant meeting them at a bus stop in angry
mood. All these facts were not found in the police statement.
8 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
Though, according to him, he had told all these facts to the police.
He could not assign any reason for those omissions in his police
statement. He was given suggestions that, he was frequently
calling the Appellant's wife on her phone number. He denied that
suggestion. He also denied that, he used to visit Seema in the
Appellant's absence. He denied that, he used to meet Seema at
different places and that whenever he visited her house, he used to
send her children outside the house on some pretext. He denied
the suggestion that he was having illicit relations with the
Appellant's wife. He further answered in the cross-examination
that, he left the Appellant's house at 7:00p.m., but he could not
tell the exact time. He reached the police station within 15
minutes. The Appellant reached there after five months. He
accepted that the neighbours had gathered outside the Appellant's
house when he rushed out. He denied the suggestion that the
Appellant was telling others that PW-1 had killed the Appellant's
wife and that he should be caught. The Appellant's defence was
put in the form of suggestions which PW-1 denied. He denied that,
he went to meet Seema in the Appellant's house, he had sent her
9 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
children out of the house and he was alone with the Appellant's
wife. He denied that, after some time, Rajendra knocked the door.
When PW-1 opened the door, Rajendra saw PW-1 and the
Appellant's wife in compromising position. Then PW-1 assaulted
Rajendra. In the meantime, the Appellant and his children came to
the house. The Appellant's wife tried to save Rajendra and in the
scuffle Rajendra and the Appellant's wife suffered injuries. All
these suggestions and the defence taken by the Appellant was
denied by PW-1. In further cross-examination, he deposed that,
neither PW-1 nor Rajendra stopped the Appellant from putting a
lock on the door from inside. The incident lasted for about one
hour. The neighbours were knocking the door from the outside.
The F.I.R. produced at Exhibit-14 shows that, it was
registered at 9:15p.m. on 07.01.2013 and the police station was
informed about the occurrence at 7:00p.m. on that evening. The
F.I.R. describes the actual incident of assault as is deposed by him
in his deposition.
8. Another important witness is the daughter of the
10 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
Appellant who was examined as PW-8. She was 15 years of age at
the time of her deposition; that means she was around 13 years of
age at the time of the incident. She was studying in the 7 th
standard. There were two elder sisters and two younger brothers
to her. She has described the incident. According to her, on
07.01.2013, she returned from her school at 6:00p.m. Her brothers
were in the house. After some time, PW-1 came to their house. He
asked PW-8 and her brother to go out. One of the brothers had
already left for his dance practice. PW-1 closed the door from
inside. After 15 minutes, the Appellant and Rajendra came to their
house and knocked on the door, but it was not opened. After some
time the door was opened. The Appellant and Rajendra went
inside. After some time, she heard the noise of quarrel between her
parents. She called the neighbours. They knocked on the door.
After some time, her father i.e. the Appellant opened the door. He
was having a knife in his hand. He had caught PW-1. She got
frightened. The Appellant and PW-1 then went away. PW-8 entered
the house and saw the situation where both the victims were lying
in a pool of blood.
11 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
In the cross-examination, she deposed that PW-1 used
to visit her house frequently between 5:00p.m. to 7:00p.m. when
the appellant was not in the house. PW-1 used to bring something
to eat and used to send the children outside the house. Her mother
had told her not to disclose about this to the Appellant. According
to her, PW-1 used to call her mother. The Appellant had told his
wife not to keep any contact with PW-1. According to her, she told
the Appellant that PW-1 was inside the house at the time of
incident. The Appellant knocked on the door loudly. After that, the
Appellant and Rajendra both went inside. Rajendra entered first.
9. PW-9 Digambar Waghmare was Seema's father.
According to him, the relations between the Appellant and Seema
were cordial, but from 04.08.2006 there was quarrel and dispute
between the Appellant and Seema. This witness did not know the
cause of the quarrel. He has also deposed about the threat given by
the Appellant. But, it would be a hearsay evidence as he himself
had not heard it and it was told by his daughter in law and not by
the deceased herself. Therefore, his evidence is not much helpful
either to the prosecution or to the defence.
12 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
10. PW-12 Dr. Sanjay Watode had conducted the
postmortem examination on both dead bodies. He has recorded
that, Seema had suffered four stab injuries of the size around 3cm
x 1cm and of the depth about 7cm to 9cm. Those stab injuries
were on the chest and on the abdomen One stab injury was on the
chest, two stab injuries were on the abdomen and one stab injury
was on the left thigh. There was one incised wound of 4cm x 1cm
x 1cm on the left forearm. There was another incised wound on
the left wrist joint and there was one abrasion.
The cause of death was mentioned as 'Death due to
haemorrhagic shock with multiple stab injuries'. All the stab
injuries were serious in nature and were sufficient to cause death.
The postmorem of the other victim Rajendra Rane
showed that he had suffered four stab wounds. There were stab
injuries on the chest. One stab wound was on the junction of the
chest and abdomen and one more stab wound was on the back.
Those stab injuries were deep. There were contusions and
abrasions on the abdomen and forearm. In all, he had suffered
13 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
nine injuries. The cause of death was 'Death due to haemorrhagic
shock with multiple stab injuries on chest, back and abdomen'.
There is hardly any dispute about the nature of injuries and cause
of death. Postmortem notes are produced on record at Exhibit-49
and 50.
11. PW-3 Ranjana Shrivastav was a panch in whose presence
Seema's clothes were seized. PW-4 Umesh Raut was a panch for
inquest panchanama in respect of Rajendra. The panchanama is
produced on record at Exhibit-23.
12. PW-6 Rahul Wankhede was a pancha in whose presence
the blood stained knife was seized at the police station from the
hands of the Appellant. The seizure panchanama is produced on
record at Exhibit-28. The description of the knife was that, it had
21cm long blade with 11cm long wooden handle. The width of the
blade of the knife was 3.5cm. The said panchanama was carried
out between 7:20p.m. to 8:00p.m. on 07.01.2013.
13. PW-7 Kapildev Kamble was a pancha for spot
panchanama which is produced on record at Exhibit-30. The
14 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
panchanama describes the seizure of various articles from the spot.
Various articles viz. Mobile phone, watch, glass, one lock having
blood stains were seized from the spot.
14. PW-11 Vikas Phulkar was a Nodal officer of the mobile
service provider who produced the CDR.
15. PW-14 Hanumant Dekari was a pancha for seizure of the
clothes of the Appellant. However, his evidence is not material
because he has admitted in his cross-examination that the clothes
of the Appellant were already kept on the table when he reached
the police station and the police had told him that those were the
clothes of the Appellant. Thus, this piece of evidence of seizure of
the clothes and the chemical analysis report of those clothes;
which purportedly were of the Appellant is not helpful to the
prosecution because the clothes were already on the table when
the pancha came to the police station. The manner of seizure of
clothes of the Appellant is not free from doubt.
16. PW-5 Rashmi Rane was wife of the other victim
Rajendra. She has deposed that, there was a meeting at their
15 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
house. The Appellant and PW-1 had attended the meeting upto
3.30p.m. After the meeting they went out including her husband.
In the night, she received a message that her husband Rajendra
was admitted to the hospital.
In the cross-examination, she admitted that she had
not seen any dispute between Rajendra and the Appellant in
respect of their business.
17. PW-10 Dr. K. P. Madhukar was examined to prove the
injuries suffered by PW-1. He had examined PW-1 at Rajawadi
Hospital on 07.01.2013. PW-1 had suffered muscle deep injury of
the size 2 x 1 x 0.5cm over the flank. He had abrasions on both
elbows and forehead. The injury certificate was produced on
record at Exhibit-41. The case papers were produced on record at
Exhibit-42.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that, PW-1 was
not having any injury on the chest and back, and that the injuries
were possible in an accident. The medical papers show that, it was
an incised stab wound on the right flank.
16 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
18. The other witnesses are the police witnesses who had
taken part in the investigation. PW-13 API Bajirao Naik had
registered the F.I.R. He had carried out the inquest panchanama on
the dead body of Seema. It is produced on record at Exhibit-52. He
had also carried out inquest panchanama of the dead body of
Rajendra. It is produced on record at Exhibit-23. He seized the
clothes of the injured. He prepared the spot panchanama and
seized the articles from the spot.
In the cross-examination, he narrated that, he met PW-
1 for the first time in that evening at 8:00p.m.
19. PW-15 API Ashok Pardhi had arrested the appellant in
the police station. He seized the Appellant's clothes. The knife was
seized in his presence.
20. PW-16 API Kiran Pavase deposed that, at about 7:00p.m.
the Appellant came to the police station with his blood stained
clothes and knife. He has also deposed about the alleged
confession made by the Appellant, but that part would be
inadmissible.
17 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
In the cross-examination, he deposed that, PW-1
reached the police station before the Appellant.
21. PW-17 P.I. Shivaji Gaware deposed that, he was on the
patrolling duty at about 7:00p.m. on 07.01.2013. He was informed
about the incident at Sangharsh Nagar. He was directed to go to
the spot. He went to the spot and made enquiries. He carried out
further investigation. He sent the articles to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, procured the CDR etc. After completion of the
investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.
22. The Defence witness head constable Shivaji Malgunde
deposed that, he had taken the Appellant for medical treatment to
Rajawadi Hospital. The appellant was having injury on his right
hand. The medical papers in respect of the Appellant's injury
produced on record at Exhibit-74 show that he had suffered two
CLWs near right little finger and ring finger, one incised wound on
the palm and abrasions on the left little finger.
This is the evidence in this case.
23. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
18 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution case if taken on its face value as is deposed by
PW-1 is simply unbelievable. She submitted that, if, as per the
prosecution case, the Appellant was angry because of the alleged
affair between PW-1 and the Appellant's wife, naturally, PW-1
should have been the main target. But, instead, PW-1 had escaped
without any serious injury and instead, Rajendra who had nothing
to do with the dispute was assaulted and murdered. She,
therefore, submitted that, it was not possible that the Appellant
would leave PW-1 and assault Rajendra instead, who had nothing
to do with the dispute. She further submitted that the omissions
from PW-1's police statement which are brought out in the cross-
examination show that PW-1's version about Appellant inviting
him to his house for tea etc. is false. This improvement is made to
justify PW-1's presence in the Appellant's house. The conduct of
PW-1 is unnatural. When he rushed outside the house, first he
would have sought help from the neighbours, but instead,
according to PW-1, he rushed to the police station. She further
submitted that, the story, that the Appellant himself gave PW-1 the
19 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
key of the lock because of which the Appellant could escape, is
unbelievable. She submitted that the other circumstantial evidence
against the Appellant is full of doubt. The Appellant's clothes were
already on the table when the panchas had seen it. Therefore, this
evidence loses its importance.
24. Learned counsel specifically relied on the evidence of
PW-8 Leena i.e. the Appellant's daughter. She submitted that the
said evidence runs contrary to the prosecution case and there is no
reason to disbelieve her evidence. She submitted that, in that
circumstance, benefit of doubt be given to the Appellant.
25. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that, PW-1's
injuries were not self inflicted. Those injuries were unexplained by
the appellant. On the other hand, the injuries on the hand of the
Appellant were possible when the Appellant had stabbed both the
victims. He submitted that, presence of PW-1, as well as, the
Appellant inside the house is not denied by the defence. In that
case, it was important for the appellant to have discharged the
burden U/s.106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to how the
20 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
incident had taken place. Instead, the Appellant has not taken any
specific defence in his examination U/s.313 of the Cr.p.c. and the
defence taken in the form of suggestions is hardly acceptable. He
submitted that, PW-1's version about the meeting till afternoon
and thereafter all of them going to the Appellant's house is
supported by the evidence of Rajendra's wife; and more
importantly, through the CDR which is produced on record. He
submitted that, the record shows that the mobile phone number of
the Appellant was 9930639215. The mobile phone number of the
Appellant's wife was 8691816930 and the mobile phone number
of PW-1 was 9029009646. Learned APP submitted that the CDR
shows that PW-1 had made those phone calls and the Appellant
had returned his phone call at exactly the same time as it was
described by PW-1. This specifically, not only corroborates the
version of PW-1, but it destroys the false defence taken by the
appellant that, PW-1 himself came to the house of the Appellant
deliberately when the Appellant was not in the house and that he
was having illicit relations with the Appellant's wife. He submitted
that, it was a preplanned, premeditated murder committed with
21 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
full prepration. He further submitted that PW-1 was allowed to
escape because the Appellant wanted to shift the blame of murder
on PW-1.
26. We have considered these submissions. The case is based
on the evidence of the injured eye witness PW-1. Therefore, his
evidence will have to be scrutinized carefully. Though, the burden
on the defence was not as heavy as on the prosecution, the
Appellant's version will also have to be taken into consideration. It
is undisputed by both the sides that, when the incident took place,
four persons were present inside the house and the house was
closed from inside. They were, the two victims, PW-1 and the
Appellant. Out of them, both the victims are dead. Therefore, it is
only PW-1 and the Appellant who could tell the truth as to how the
incident had taken place. In that connection, the Appellant had
taken the defence; firstly of total denial and through suggestions it
was suggested to PW-1 that, he had come to the Appellant's house
deliberately when the Appellant was not in the house. He had sent
the children out and when the Appellant and Rajendra reached the
house, he assaulted Rajendra and the Appellant's wife. As against
22 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
that, PW-1's version is that the Appellant himself invited PW-1 to
his house to sort out his grievance that PW-1 was having relations
with the Appellant's wife. PW-1's version to that extent is definitely
supported by CDR which shows that there were calls exchanged
between the parties. At about 4:15p.m. the Appellant had called
PW-1. There was a conversation for 22 seconds. Aftat that, again
the appellant called PW-1 at 4:40p.m. The conversation was for 80
seconds. At 5:01p.m. PW-1 called the Appellant and the
conversation was for 50 seconds. Then at around 5:28p.m. the
Appellant called PW-1 and the conversation was for 61 seconds.
Again at 5:52p.m. the Appellant called PW-1 and the conversation
was for 173 seconds. At about 6:11p.m. PW-1 called the Appellant
and the conversation was lasted for 14 seconds. All these phone
calls, support PW-1's version as to how he travelled to the
Appellant's house at the appellant's instance. He had taken
Rajendra with him. They had stopped at the bus stop and then the
Appellant had joined them. After that, all of them went to the
Appellant's house and then this incident had taken place. Thus,
there is strong corroboration to this part of the version of PW-1. As
23 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
against that, the Appellant's version that, PW-1 had gone to his
house uninvited when the Appellant was not in the house, stands
falsified by this CDR.
In that context, even the version given by PW-8 i.e. the
Appellant's daughter is falsified because of these calls. She had
tried to save her father by putting the blame on her own mother
and PW-1.
27. As far as motive part is concerned, the Appellant had
strong motive to assault his own wife because he was entertaining
serious doubt that PW-1 was having illicit relations with his wife.
On the other hand, PW-1 had no motive to assault Seema. Even
assuming that PW-1 was found with the Appellant's wife, that was
no reason for PW-1 to assault the wife of the Appellant. The
natural conduct was to save himself or to assault the appellant.
Therefore, PW-1 had no motive, whatsoever, to assault Seema.
28. In the entire incident, it is quite clear that Rajendra was
an unfortunate victim caught in the dispute between the husband
and wife at a wrong time. There was no reason for him to be
24 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
present in the house at that time; except that it was his misfortune.
He was present at the wrong place at the wrong time. According to
PW-1, he had taken Rajendra with him when he was going to the
house of the Appellant. Rajendra himself was not individually
invited by the Appellant to his house. Rajendra just happened to
accompany PW-1 to the Appellant's house. According to PW-1,
after Seema was assaulted, the appellant gave knife blows on the
person of Rajendra.
29. After this assault, according to PW-1, the Appellant
allowed PW-1 to go away. After the incident, even as per the
defence, the Appellant, as well as, PW-1 came out and went to the
police station one after other. The Appellant and PW-1, as
mentioned earlier, are the only persons who could narrate the
incident. PW-1 has described the incident. On the other hand, the
Appellant has not discharged his burden U/s.106 of the Evidence
Act about the facts which were within his exclusive knowledge. He
has committed this offence with premeditation and preparation.
30. The C.A. report shows that, all the clothes, of the
25 of 25 902-apeal-453-18 (J)
victims, the appellant and PW-1 were stained with human blood.
The knife was also stained with human blood. Even if the seizure
of clothes of the Appellant is left out, it is undisputed that all the
four were inside the house. There was blood all around and,
therefore, finding blood on the clothes of all of them was not
unusual. The prosecution case is based on the evidence of the
injured eye witness PW-1. We find that his evidence is trustworthy
and inspires confidence.
31. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that
the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the Appellant. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the
Appeal.
32. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. With the dismissal
of the Appeal, the interim application is also disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
