Anil S/O Laxmanrao Mohod vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1308 Bom

Bombay High Court

Anil S/O Laxmanrao Mohod vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 9 January, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:219




              Judgment

                                                             337 apeal167.23

                                           1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.167 OF 2023

              Anil s/o Laxmanrao Mohod,
              aged about 39 years,
              r/o Chikhalsawangi, tahsil Morshi,
              district Amravati,
              (presently in Central Jail, at Amravati
              Convict No.C-5926).                   ..... Appellant.

                                  :: V E R S U S ::

              State of Maharashtra,
              Police Station Officer, Police Station
              Morshi, tahsil Morshi,
              district Amravati.                   ..... Respondent.

              ====================================
              Shri Amit Balpande, Counsel for the Appellant.
              Shri C.A.Lokhande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
              Respondent.
              ====================================

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              CLOSED ON : 02/01/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 09/01/2025

              JUDGMENT

1. By this appeal, the appellant (the accused) has

challenged judgment and order dated 24.6.2021 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in

Sessions Case No.41/2016.

.....2/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

2. By the said judgment impugned, the accused is

convicted for offence under Section 307 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine Rs.5000/-, in

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Facts of the prosecution case necessary for

disposal of the appeal are as under:

Vandana (the informant), is the wife of the

accused whose marriage was solemnized with the

accused on 2.5.2010. Out of the said wedlock, they had

two children. After the marriage, the accused was

addicted to bad vices like drinking liquor and was

suspecting character of the informant and on that count

was assaulting and ill-treating her and, therefore, she left

matrimonial house in the year 2015 and started residing

at Chandur-Bazar along with her children. She had her

bank account in the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch

Khanapur wherein the accused had deposited Rs.30,000/-.

On 6.12.2015, she had gone to the said bank for

.....3/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

withdrawing amount. At about 1:00 pm, when she came

out of the bank, the accused demanded money from her

to which she refused and, therefore, the accused took out

a knife and gave a blow of the knife on left side of her

stomach due to which she sustained bleeding injury. The

accused was caught at the spot. The informant was taken

to the hospital whereat her statement was recorded. On

the basis of the said statement, the crime was registered

against the accused.

4. After registration of the crime, wheels of

investigation started rotating. The Investigating Officer

immediately rushed to the spot of the incident and drawn

spot panchanama. Blood stained clothes of the informant

as well as clothes of the accused were seized. The

samples from the spot of the incident of soil were also

collected. The knife was seized during personal search of

the accused, which was sealed. All incriminating articles

were forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer. After

completion of the investigation, chargesheet was

submitted against the accused. Learned Magistrate

.....4/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

committed the case to the Court of Sessions as offence

under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively

triable by the Court of sessions. Learned Sessions Judge

framed charge vide Exhibit-4. The accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution

has examined in all nine witnesses namely Vandana, the

informant, vide Exhibit-25 (PW1); Dilip Raut, the Police

Constable, vide Exhibit-31 (PW2); Megha Khade, the

Pancha on the spot, vide Exhibit-33 (PW3); Rajesh Purohit,

the eyewitness, vide Exhibit-42 (PW4); Dr.Balwant

Ramteke vide Exhibit-43 (PW5); Bhupesh Meshram, the

bank employee, vide Exhibit-48 (PW6); Sandesh Palande,

the Investigating Officer, vide Exhibit-53 (PW7); Dilip Raut,

the Police Constable, vide Exhibit-63 (PW8); and Sachin

Chavan, the Investigating Officer, vide Exhibit-66 (PW9).

6. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed

reliance on report Exhibit-27, FIR Exhibit-32, spot

panchanama Exhibit-34, medical certificate Exhibit-45,

.....5/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

query letter Exhibit-46, medical treatment papers Exhibit-

47, arrest panchanama Exhibit-54, letter to the Chemical

Analyzer Exhibit-68, and the Chemical Analyzer's Reports

Exhibits-73 and 74.

7. The incriminating evidence is put to the accused in

order to obtain his explanation as to the evidence

appearing against him. Defence of the accused is of total

denial and of a false implication. After appreciating the

evidence, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict

the accused as the aforesaid.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the

present appeal is preferred by the accused on the ground

that learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the

evidence in the light that there is no medical evidence to

show that the injury caused is sufficient to cause death.

Only one injury is sustained by the informant. At the

most, the case would cover under Section 324 of the

Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the judgment impugned

.....6/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

in the appeal is erroneous and liable to be quashed and

set aside.

9. Heard learned counsel Shri Amit Balpande for the

accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

C.A.Lokhande for the State.

10. Learned counsel for the accused took me through

the entire evidence and submitted that there was a

matrimonial dispute between the informant and the

accused. There was motive to implicate the accused

falsely in the alleged offence. As far as medical evidence

is concerned, the same is not sufficient to hold that the

injury caused was sufficient to cause death if timely

treatment was not given. Recovery of the knife is also

suspicious. No blood stains were found on the knife during

the Chemical Analysis Examination. Even, if the case of

the prosecution is accepted as it is, at the most the case

would cover under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code

and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

.....7/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

11. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State supported the judgment impugned in the appeal

and submitted that the nature of the injury as well as the

weapon of the offence clearly proves an intention to

commit murder of the informant and the injury sustained

by the informant satisfies ingredients of Section 307 of the

Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of

merits and liable to dismissed.

12. After hearing the rival submissions and appreciating

the evidence adduced before the trial court, allegations

against the accused, who is husband of the informant, are

that he has assaulted the informant by giving a blow of

knife on her stomach on refusal by her to give him money.

13. To substantiate the prosecution case, the entire

thrust was on the evidence of PW1 informant and

eyewitness PW4 Rajesh Purohit. To corroborate the

version of the informant, the prosecution also placed

reliance on the evidence of PW5 Dr.Balwant Ramteke who

.....8/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

examined the informant and issued the medical

certificate.

As far as the evidence of the informant is

concerned, it states that her marriage with the accused

was performed on 2.5.2010 and till 2015, she cohabited

with the accused. She had two children from the accused.

The accused was suspecting her character and was

assaulting her under the influence of liquor. She

specifically deposed that nephew of her mother namely

Vishwajeet used to visit her house and, therefore, the

accused was suspecting her character. Therefore, she left

the house along with her children during Diwali 2015 and

started residing at Chandur-Bazar along with her children.

On 6.12.2015, she received a phone call of the accused

who asked her to come to Morshi to collect Aadhar Cards

of her children. On 7.12.2015 also, she received a phone

call of the accused. On 7.12.2015, she had been to the

Bank of Maharashtra for withdrawing amount whereat the

accused was sitting wrapping his face by a handkerchief.

After withdrawal of the money, she came out of the bank

.....9/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

and the accused approached her and demanded money

from her. On her refusal, he took out a knife and gave her

a blow on left side of the stomach due to which she

sustained an injury. She was taken to the hospital. Her

blood stains clothes were seized by the police.

14. During cross examination of PW1 informant, an

attempt was made to show that the accused was

suspecting that she had relations with one Vishwajeet. It

was also suggested that she herself left the company of

the accused to which she explained that due to the assault

at the hands of the accused she left his company. As far

as her evidence on the incident is concerned, the same

was not shattered during the cross examination. She

admitted that during her hospitalization, Vishwajeet was

along with her.

15. To corroborate the version of PW1 informant,

eyewitness PW4 Rajesh Purohit was examined. He stated

that on 7.12.2015, he was standing near bus stop. One

lady along with two children was standing near a pan stall.

.....10/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

At the relevant time, one person came there and picked

up quarrel with the lady on the count of money and

assaulted her with knife on her stomach. The lady

shouted and kept her hand on the portion where she

sustained the injury. People gathered there. He along

with other persons caught the accused who gave blow of

knife and handed over his custody to police. On enquiry

with the lady, she disclosed her name as Vandana and

name of the assailant as her husband Anil. During the

personal search of the accused by police, the knife was

seized. Though this witness is cross examined, nothing is

eliminated from his cross examination.

16. Besides the oral evidence of this witness i.e.

eyewitness PW4 Rajesh Purohit, the prosecution placed

reliance on medical evidence. PW5 Dr.Balwant Ramteke

was attached to Sub Divisional Hospital at Morshi as

Medical Officer, who stated that he was on the duty on

7.12.2015 at about 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm. The PW1

informant was brought to the hospital and he treated her.

History was narrated as assault by a knife. On

.....11/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

examination, he found on her person, "stab injury over left

lumber region 2x1 cm with localized hematoma with

peritorial tear with bleeding". The informant was

assaulted by a sharp weapon and the age of the injury was

4 to 6 hours and the injury was grievous in nature. She

was also referred to the General Hospital. He issued

medical certificate Exhibit-44. Injury is possible by knife.

He also received a query from the Investigating Officer by

referring the weapon to him and he opined that the injury

is possible by the weapon referred to him. The said query

report is Exhibit-46.

During the cross examination, it was suggested that

Exhibit-47 nowhere shows name of hospital and bed

number etc. As far as nature of the injury is concerned, it

was not challenged during the cross examination.

17. Thus, the evidence as to the nature of the injury

remained unchallenged.

18. Police Constable PW2 Dilip Raut, after receipt of the

information, went in the hospital and recorded the

.....12/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

statement of the informant on the basis of which the crime

was registered.

19. Pancha on the spot PW3 Megha Khade, testified

that she was called to act as Pancha. Spot of the incident

was shown by person namely Rajesh Purohit, who also

pointed out towards the accused and disclosed that he

assaulted a woman by knife. In their presence, personal

search of the accused was taken and the knife was seized

during the personal search panchanama. Spot

panchanama is at Exhibit-34. During her cross

examination, it came on record that when the knife was

seized, there were faint blood stains on the knife.

20. The evidence of bank employee PW6 Bhupesh

Meshram is only to the extent that on the day of the

incident the informant had been to the bank.

21. Investigating Officer PW7 Sandesh Palande,

narrated about the investigation carried out by him. His

evidence discloses that on receipt of the information, he

visited the spot of the incident whereat people caught the

.....13/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

accused who was taken into custody. From his personal

search, one knife was seized on which faint blood stains

were there. Accordingly, panchanama was drawn. The

arrest panchanama of the accused was also drawn. The

clothes of the informant were also seized and after

completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was

submitted. Though he is cross examined, only suggestion

was given that the false investigation was carried out.

22. Police Constable PW8 Dilip Raut, seized the blood

stains clothes of the informant by drawing panchanama

Exhibit-64 and another Investigating Officer PW9 Sachin

Chavan is formal witness.

23. The Chemical Analyzer's Report Exhibit-73 shows

no blood is detected on knife (Exhibit-1). Whereas, blood

detected on the clothes of the informant is human blood.

24. Learned Sessions Judge has accepted the

contention of the prosecution case on appreciating the

evidence and held that the prosecution has proved its

case beyond reasonable doubt.

.....14/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

25. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that

only one injury was sustained by the informant which is

not sufficient to cause death under normal circumstances

and, therefore, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out. As far as the evidence

adduced by the prosecution is concerned, the evidence of

PW1 informant is sufficient to show that out of

matrimonial dispute and on refusal by her to give a

money, she was assaulted by the accused and this fact is

corroborated by eyewitness PW4 Rajesh Purohit, who is an

independent witness in whose presence the alleged

incident has taken place. He also stated that there was

some altercation of words between the informant and the

accused on account of money and the accused has taken

out the knife and assaulted the informant by giving blow

on her stomach. The medical evidence shows that the

injury sustained by the informant is grievous in nature.

Learned Sessions Judge has considered that the evidence

of the informant is not shattered during the cross

examination and is duly corroborated by the independent

.....15/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

witness. The genesis of the occurrence is duly established

by the prosecution.

26. The only question needs to be dealt with relates to

applicability of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The

evidence of the informant and eyewitness PW4 Rajesh

Purohit goes to show that there was altercation between

the informant and the accused on account of money and

the accused took out a knife and dealt a blow on stomach,

which is a vital part of body.

27. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for

the accused that only one injury was sustained and which

was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads as

under:

307. Attempt to murder.-- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by

.....16/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.Attempts by life convicts.-- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

Lustrations

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.

(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.

(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section.

(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not

.....17/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servant to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

Classification of offence. - The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Court of Session.

The first part of the said Section refers to an act

with such intention or knowledge, and under such

circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he

would be guilty of murder. The second part of the said

Section carries as heavier punishment refers to the hurt

caused in pursuance of such an act.

28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Madhya Pradesh vs. Kanha alias Omprakash 1 by

referring the judgment in the case of State of

Maharashtra vs. Balram Bama Patil 2 observed that , it

is not necessary that a bodily injury sufficient under

normal circumstances to cause death should have been

1 AIR 2019 SC 713 2 AIR 1983 SC 305

.....18/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

inflicted, by quoting paragraph No.9 of the said judgment,

as follows:

"9...To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal

.....19/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."

29. Thus, in view of observations, it was held that to

establish the commission of the offence under section 307

of the Indian Penal Code, it is not essential that a fatal

injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.

30. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 of

the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish (i)

the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by

the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the

accused had attempted to commit the murder of the

prosecution witness. Admittedly, whether the accused

intended to commit murder of another person would

depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Although the nature of injury actually caused may often

give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to

the intention of the accused, such intention may also be

deduced from other circumstances. Admittedly, intention

of the accused is the inner compartment of his mind and

.....20/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of

the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time

of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body

where the injury was caused and the nature of injury. The

intention of the accused can be ascertained from actual

injury and surrounding circumstances.

31. In the present case, learned Sessions Judge has

based its conviction on the basis of the evidence of PW1

Vandana, eyewitness PW4 Rajesh Purohit, and PW5

Dr.Balwant Ramteke. The evidence on record shows that

the accused was carrying the knife who took out knife and

gave a forceful blow on the stomach of the informant. The

nature of injury shows that it was a stab injury over

lumber region 2x1 cm with localized hematoma with

peritorial tear with bleeding. The evidence on record

shows that the accused was aware that the informant is

coming to Khanapur in a bank for withdrawing the amount

as there was a phone call by him on that day to the

informant. The informant had been to bank to withdraw

the amount and she has withdrawn the amount and the

.....21/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

accused came there by covering his face carrying knife

with him. As the informant refused to pay him the

amount, he immediately took out the knife and gave a

blow of knife on her person.

32. Thus, the intention of the accused to cause injury is

established. The circumstance, that the accused carried

the knife along with him, itself is sufficient to show his

intention. Merely because there was no blood stain on the

knife, in view of the Chemical Analyzer's Report Exhibit-

73, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that Section 307

of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable. It must be

noted that Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code provides

imprisonment for life if the act causes hurt. It does not

require that hurt should be grievous or of a particular

degree. What is material is, the intention to cause death,

which is clearly attributable to the accused in the present

case. The circumstances clearly indicate the same and,

therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment

impugned in the appeal.

.....22/-

Judgment

337 apeal167.23

33. In this view of the matter, the appeal is devoid of

merits and liable to be dismissed and the same is

dismissed.

34. The accused shall forthwith surrender himself

before the Superintendent of Central Prison at Amravati to

undergo the sentence.

Appeal stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 10/01/2025 10:41:55