Bombay High Court
Zenito Cardozo vs State on 10 October, 2025
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
2025:BHC-GOA:2025
Esha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2016
Zenito Cardozo, S/o Vincent Cardozo, 30
years of age, r/o St. Augustinwaddo,
Morad, St. Cruz, Goa. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
State, Through P.P., Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay ... RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2016
Sachin Padgaonkar, son of Bala
Padgaonkar, 30 years, resident of House
No. 184, 1st Bairro, St. Cruz, Goa, presently
lodged as Convict Prisoner at Central Jail,
Colvale. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State (Through P.I. Agacaim Police
Station, Agacaim, Tiswadi, Goa).
2. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Bombay at Goa, Altinho, Panaji,
Goa. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2016
Prasad Kubal, son of Sadashiv Kubal, 36
years, resident of House No. 133, Near
Laxminarayan Temple, Headland Sada,
Mormugao, Goa. Presently lodged as
Convict Prisoner at Central Jail, Colvale. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State (Through P.I. Agacaim Police ... RESPONDENTS
Station, Agacaim, Tiswadi, Goa).
Page 1 of 42
th
10 October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
2. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Bombay at Goa, Altinho, Panaji, Goa.
*****
Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Bras De
Sa, Mr. Mark Valadares and Mr. Sahil Sardessai, Advocates
for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016.
Mr. Rohan Desai with Ms. Arya Parrikar and Ms. Ashwini
Bandekar, Advocates for the Appellants in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 52 and 53 of 2016.
Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State in all the Appeals.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
RESERVED ON: 18th JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 10th OCTOBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. These three Appeals arising out of the same incident, but
resulting in two Sessions Cases, trying the Accused persons in
distinct sets of allegations, are tagged together in the wake of the
commonality of the incident.
Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016 filed by the Appellant,
Zenito Cardozo, arraigned as Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No.
41/2009, being charged for committing an offence under Sections
304, 307, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC along with two other
Accused persons, namely, Mahavir Nadar and Domnic Nazareth.
On conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge at
Mapusa by judgment dated 29.07.2016 convicted Zenito Cardozo,
the Appellant before me in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016, for the
offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced him to
th
10 October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
undergo three years rigorous imprisonment along with his
conviction under Section 326 of IPC by directing him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three months, both sentences having been directed to run
concurrently.
As far as Accused No. 2, Mahavir Nadar and Accused No. 3,
Domnic Nazareth are concerned, in the absence of any evidence
establishing their involvement, they stood acquitted of the charges
levelled against them.
Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016 is Admitted on 04.08.2016.
2. In a counter case registered with Agassaim Police Station
arising out of the same incident, which took place on 10.05.2009,
FIR No. 32/2009 was registered on a complaint of Mr. Judas
Fernandes, which arraigned five persons as Accused, namely, Mr.
Francis D'Souza @ Miranda, Mr. Minguel D'Silva @ Kasti, Mr.
Prasad Kubal, Mr. Sachin Padgaonkar and Mr. Prakash Naik. The
aforesaid Accused persons were charged by the Additional
Sessions Judge at Mapusa in Sessions Case No. 15/2010 under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
th
10 October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
As far as Accused No. 2 is concerned, since he was
absconding, the trial proceeded against him by invoking Section
299 of Cr.P.C.
On conclusion of the trial, the three Accused persons i.e.
Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, were convicted for committing an offence
under Section 326 of IPC and were acquitted for the offences
under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 307 read with Section 149
of IPC. Accused No. 5 stood acquitted of all the charges.
Pursuant to the conviction under Section 326 of IPC, the
Trial Court sentenced Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each
or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months,
the fine amount being directed to be paid to the injured, Zenito
Cardozo.
During the pendency of the Appeal, Accused No. 1, Francis
D'Souza demised and the Appeal stood abated against him and I
have passed a separate order on 18.07.2025 in that regard.
The two Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2016 filed by
Sachin Padgaonkar and Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2016 filed by
Prasad Kubal, raise a challenge to the finding of the conviction and
imposition of sentence in the criminal trial, the Appeals being
Admitted on 05.08.2016.
th
10 October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Lotlikar
appearing with Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Mr. Mark Valadares and Mr.
Sahil Sardessai for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of
2016 and Mr. Rohan Dessai appearing with Ms. Arya Parrikar for
the Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 52 and 53 of 2016 and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pravin Faldessai for the
State in all three Appeals.
With the able assistance of the respective Counsel, I have
perused the paperbook in the respective Appeals and before I
appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the Appellants, I
deem it necessary to refer to the prosecution case in brief.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.05.2009, PW-1,
Joe Almeida (Complainant in FIR No. 31/2009), received a phone
call from his friend, proposing to have a party and he along with
his cousin, Christopher proceeded to a Bar known as 'Lesles Place'
near Sozi, Goa Velha and sat inside the Bar. One Kasti also joined
them along with Hazel and his three friends. After having snacks
and beer, they left the Bar at 14:00 hours and he along with Hazel,
Christopher and Kasti proceeded to Siridao beach and was sitting
in the shack, where he found Francis Miranda sitting on another
table along with a group of his friends, amongst whom he
recognized Johnny and Santosh @ Micku (the deceased persons).
th
10 October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
After a while, after consuming beer and on payment of bill, a
red colour Mahindra Jeep arrived behind the shack and three to
four persons alighted from the jeep and came inside the shack, one
of whom was identified as Zenito Cardozo accompanied with
Mahavir and Domnic and thereafter, some verbal tiff occurred
between Zenito and Francis Miranda, which promoted Zenito to
push Miranda, who fell on the ground and a scuffle occured
between them. According to the prosecution, Mahavir and Domnic
were encouraging Zenito to assault and therefore, Zenito removed
a knife from his person and stabbed Miranda. In the meantime,
Johnny and Santosh intervened, but since Zenito was in a violent
mood and uncontrollable, he stabbed both of them, who received
bleeding injuries and fell down. The Complainant was frightened
and he along with Hazel and Christopher fled from the spot on
their motorcycles. Thereafter, a phone call was received by one of
them from Kasti informing that Miranda, Johnny and Santosh
were taken to GMC, Bambolim and it was also informed that
Santosh had succumbed to the injuries and even Miranda and
Johnny had received serious injuries in the assault and were in
serious condition.
The above accusation was the basis of FIR No. 31/2009
registered with Agassaim Police Station against three Accused
including Zenito, the Appellant before me.
th
10 October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
5. Another version of the said incident surfaces through a
complaint filed by Judas Fernandes, resulting into registration of
FIR No. 32/2009, invoking the offences under Sections 143, 147,
148, 307 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC.
As per the version of this witness, on 10.05.2009, he along
with his wife, Julia and his aunt, went for a picnic at Siridao beach
and his other relatives joined them on the beach and he called
Cynthia, sister of Zenito Cardozo from his mobile and offered her
to join them, but was informed, that she is unable to do so, as she
was with her family and relatives. However, she requested for his
jeep as they wanted to take food to the beach and therefore, she
was told that she should send Zenito to collect the jeep.
At around 12 noon, Zenito and his friend came on a
motorcycle to Siridao beach and took his jeep. In the afternoon, he
called Zenito to bring the jeep back as they wanted to go to the
residence and around 3:30 to 4:00 pm., Zenito came along with
his two friends, Mahavir and Domnic and they were asked to wait
as the things were being packed.
As per the version of Judas, the Accused persons were
sitting inside the shack at Siridao and consuming liquor. At that
time, Accused No. 1, Francis called Zenito in the shack and forced
him to sit and after questioning him as to why he was dictating
terms, all the Accused persons started assaulting Zenito with soda
th
10 October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
bottles and beer bottles and Johnny (Accused No. 6) assaulted
Zenito with a knife. As per the Complainant, the Accused persons
assaulted Zenito repeatedly and Accused No. 4, Sachin, who was
having a broken bottle in his hand, tried to cause injury to the
Complainant, Judas by stabbing him in his stomach, and hence he
ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he phoned Cynthia and
informed that Zenito had been assaulted and requested her to
come on the spot and the Complainant also visited the Hospital, to
learn that Zenito was under treatment.
6. In light of the two cross FIRs being registered arising out of
the same incident, with two versions being presented, two
separate chargesheets were filed. In the first chargesheet, Zenito
along with Mahavir and Domnic faced accusations under Sections
302, 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, whereas in the
second chargesheet, seven persons including Johnny Fernandes
and Santosh Kalel (the two deceased) were arraigned as Accused.
In the chargesheet filed against Zenito and two others under
Section 302 of IPC, the Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa,
while trying these Accused in Sessions Case No. 41/2009 charged
them for committing an offence punishable under Section 304 of
IPC by framing the charge as below:-
"That you on or about 10th day of May 2009, at
16.00 hours at Anastacia Beach Shack at Siridao
th
10 October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
Beach, with your common intention committed
culpable homicide not amounting to murder by
causing death of Shri Santosh Kalel and Shri Jhonny
Fernandes and thereby committed offence punishable
under section 304 IPC and within my cognizance.
Further you on the same date, time and place as
mentioned in the first charge with your common
intention, did an act to Shri Francis Miranda with
such intention and under such circumstances that if by
that act you had caused the death of Shri Francis
Miranda, you would have been guilty of murder and
you also caused hurt to him and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and
within my cognizance.
Further you on the same date, time and place
mentioned in the first charge with your common
intention, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Shri
Francis Miranda by means of knife which is an
instrument for cutting and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and
within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this
Court on the said charge on 28th day of the month of
July of the year 2010."
7. In Sessions Case No. 15/2010, the Additional Sessions
Judge framed the charge against the five Accused persons as
below:-
"That you all accused alongwith the deceased
accused Johnny Fernandes and Santosh Kale on
th
10 October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
10.5.2009 at about 16.00 hours at Anatasia Beach
Shack, Siridao Goa were members of an unlawful
assembly, the common object of which was to kill
Zenito Cardozo and thus you thereby have committed
an offence punishable under section 143 of IPC and
within my cognizance.
Secondly, you all the accused alongwith said
deceased accused on the same date, time and place as
mentioned in the first charge, being armed with
deadly weapons were members of unlawful assembly,
the common object of which was to kill Zenito Cardozo
and thus you thereby have committed an offence
punishable under section 144 of IPC and within my
cognizance.
Thirdly, you all the accused alongwith said
deceased accused on the same date, time and place as
mentioned in the first charge, were members of
unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common
object of such assembly, namely to kill Zenito Cardozo
committed an offence of rioting punishable under
section 147 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Fourthly, you all the accused alongwith said
deceased accused, on the same date, time and place as
mentioned in the first charge, were members of
unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the
common object of such assembly, namely to kill Zenito
Cardozo committed an offence of rioting with deadly
weapons and thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 148 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Fifthly, you all the accused alongwith said
deceased accused, on the same date, time and place as
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
mentioned in the first charge, you all accused in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly,
assaulted said Zenito Cardozo with knife and broken
beer and soda bottles with intention and under such
circumstances that if by that act, you had caused the
death of said Zenito, you would have been guilty of
murder and also caused hurt to said Zenito and
thereby committed an offence punishable under section
307 r/w section 149 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Lastly on the same date, place and time
mentioned hereinabove, you all the accused alongwith
said deceased accused voluntarily caused hurt to Shri
Domnic Nazareth with slaps and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 323 r/w section 149 of
IPC.
And I hereby direct that you both be tried by this
Court on the said charge on 12th day of the month of
July of the year 2011."
8. The two sessions cases were tried by the Additional Sessions
Judge and in Sessions Case No. 41/2009, the prosecution
examined 20 witnesses to establish the charge under Sections 304,
307 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The key witnesses examined include the Complainant, Joe
Almeida (PW-1), Hazel Mendes (PW-7), Francis D'Souza (PW-10),
Prakash Naik (PW-11), Sachin Padgaonkar (PW-13), Prasad Kubal
(PW-14), apart from the Doctors, Panchas and the Investigating
Officers.
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
PW-1, Joe Almeida, the Complainant, who filed the
complaint on 10.05.2009 pursuant to which the FIR was
registered, did not however, support the case of the prosecution
and since he was resiling from the contents of the complaint, the
Prosecutor sought permission to cross examine the witness. When
confronted with the complaint, he deposed that the complaint was
written by the Police without him telling about the incident and he
denied the entire prosecution case that an argument occurred
between Zenito and Miranda, which resulted into a scuffle and
thereafter, Zenito by a knife stabbed Miranda. He also denied the
suggestion that when Johnny and Santosh intervened, Zenito also
assaulted them.
On cross examination by the Public Prosecutor, he deposed
that the names of the Accused persons in the complaint were given
to him by the Police and he denied the suggestion that he knew the
names of the Accused before filing of the complaint. This witness,
therefore, in any case, did not aid the prosecution.
The next witness on which the prosecution relied upon is
Hazel Mendes, the friend of the Complainant being examined as
PW-7, who also did not support the case of the prosecution and
was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor and there is a
complete denial of the suggestions indicating the involvement of
the Accused in the crime. However, on cross examination by the
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
Advocate for Accused Nos. 1 and 2, it is stated by this witness that
there were some bottles in front of Miranda's table, but the
witness is unable to state who had assaulted whom.
9. Another key witness of the prosecution is PW-10, Francis
D'Souza, also an injured and Accused in the cross case, who
demised during the pendency of the Appeal.
In his deposition before the Trial Court, he deposed that
when he was present at Siridao beach, Accused No. 2, Minguel
Kasti along with Hazel and Joe joined them in the shack and some
hot discussion took place between Mahavir and Johnny and even
Zenito was present and thereafter, Johnny got up and slapped
Mahavir and Francis inquired with Zenito as to why he was
spoiling his name and thereafter, a verbal spat occurred, which
resulted into Zenito pushing him and he ran out of the shack
towards the beach and except him, Johnny and others, sitting and
taking drinks in the shack, ran after Zenito. Johnny and Santosh
threw soda bottles towards Zenito, which was followed by Zenito
removing a knife from his pants and he assaulted Johnny and even
stabbed Francis with a knife twice in his abdomen. Santosh and
Johnny were assaulting Zenito and were pelting soda bottles
towards Zenito. As per this witness, he was then taken to GMC,
where he felt unconscious.
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
In the cross examination, Francis admit that the Police
chargesheeted him as Accused No. 1 for an attempt to murder and
the case is pending. He is also confronted with various offences
registered against him along with the chapter cases, with an aim to
cause disrepute.
10. PW-11, Prakash Naik also did not support the case of the
prosecution except that he saw knives in the hands of Miranda and
Johnny, but he is not a reliable eyewitness as he did not support
the case of the prosecution.
The two other witnesses, Sachin Padgaonkar and Prasad
Kubal, the Accused in the counter case, are also examined as
witness nos. PW-13 and PW-14, respectively.
These two witnesses are the Appellants in the two other
Appeals before me i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 52 and 53 of 2016,
being convicted in Sessions Case No. 15/2010.
11. As far as PW-13, Sachin Padgaonkar, is concerned, he has
deposed in sync with PW-10, Francis D' Souza, that when he
reached Siridao beach and went inside the shack where the two
deceased persons, Johnny and Santosh along with Francis
(Miranda), Hazel and Kasti were present and he joined them in
drinking liquor. He deposed that at 3:30 to 4:00 p.m., the Accused
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
persons, Zenito, Mahavir and Domnic arrived and some argument
took place between Mahavir and Johnny and at that time, Zenito
pushed Miranda, who fell down and a scuffle erupted between
Johnny and Santosh. Thereafter, Miranda fell down and Johnny
and Santosh came to his rescue and Zenito assaulted Miranda with
his hands, so Johnny and Santosh brought beer bottles and started
assaulting Zenito. Thereafter, Zenito removed a knife from his
pant pocket and stabbed Miranda, and Johnny and Santosh also
brought more glass bottles to assault Zenito and Zenito stabbed
Johnny on his chest and Santosh on his thigh. However, since
Zenito was also being assaulted with bottles, he fell down on the
floor and it is PW-13 who carried Johnny to the hospital in his own
car and asked Prasad i.e. PW-14 to shift Santosh to the hospital.
In cross examination, PW-13, Sachin admit that the beer
bottles with which Johnny and Santosh assaulted Zenito, the
assault was on the back side, though he cannot give the exact
number of bottles broken. However, in cross examination he
reiterated that Zenito removed the knife from side pocket of his
pants and he was confronted with his statement given to the Police
that Johnny and Santosh assaulted Zenito with bottles on his
head. Much serious effort is taken to affect the credibility of this
witness, but on all material particulars, he remained consistent
with his version in examination in chief and he also deposed in
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
sync with PW-10, Francis Miranda, but he admitted that there was
no knife in the hands of Miranda and he did not stab Zenito.
12. Another witness, PW-14 Prasad Kubal, who also
accompanied Sachin to the shack at Siridao Beach, gave exactly
same version as Sachin, when he deposed that they were not
knowing Zenito, but Miranda called Zenito and told him to sit with
him by calling him by his name and there was some enmity
between Johnny and Mahavir, who entered into hot arguments,
then Johnny slapped Mahavir. Thereafter, Zenito got up, though
Miranda told him to sit, but Zenito pushed Miranda and he fell
down. Thereafter, Santosh and Johnny got angry and a free fight
began when Zenito was assaulted by fist blows and kicks and he
became uncontrollable and removed a knife and he stabbed
Miranda on the stomach and he also stabbed Santosh and Johnny.
He stated that the intestines came out of the stomach of Miranda
and Johnny sustained stab injuries on the left side of his chest,
whereas Santosh sustained injuries on his thigh and he was
thrown back. He also deposed that Johnny and Santosh assaulted
Zenito with broken soda bottles and liquor bottles, as a result of
which, he became unconscious.
Being subjected to cross examination, largely he remained
consistent on material particulars, but he deposed that after
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
pushing Miranda, Zenito ran away from the shack and Santosh
and Johnny ran after him for about 10 to 15 meters, when he
removed the knife and stabbed Miranda 15 to 20 meters away
from the shack and even Santosh and Johnny were stabbed at the
same place.
13. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses examined by the
prosecution in Sessions Case No. 41/2009, wherein Zenito,
Mahavir and Domnic faced accusations under Sections 304, 307
and 326 of IPC, the prosecution relied on the medical evidence
and this includes PW-9, Dr. E.J. Rodrigues, who performed a
post-mortem on the body of deceased Santosh Kalel whereas PW-
12, Dr. Andre Fernandes conducted a post-mortem on deceased
Johnny Neves.
PW-9 proved the autopsy report along with the notes
(Exhibit-109), which was forwarded by him to the Investigating
Officer. By stepping in the witness box, he spoke of the injuries
sustained by deceased Santosh and by describing injury no. 1, he
opined it to have been caused by a sharp, pointed, penetrating
cutting weapon, whereas injury nos. 2 to 8, according to him, were
caused by a blunt weapon.
According to PW-9, the cause of his death was due to
hemorrhagic shock caused by injury no. 1 as a result of a sharp,
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
pointed, penetrating cutting weapon, which was sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.
He also opined about the approximate time of death being
within 24 hours prior to preservation. When specifically asked
whether injury nos. 2 to 8 could have been caused two days prior
to the conduct of post-mortem, he answered that the injuries were
caused within 24 hours of death and injury no. 1 could have
caused death within a short span. The witness also identified the
clothes worn by deceased and seized before the post-mortem was
conducted, which included his underwear, a pair of shoes and
pants.
14. PW-12 who conducted a post-mortem on deceased Johnny
Neves, deposed about the injuries sustained by him and he refer to
six ante-mortem injuries. According to PW-12, the cause of death
was hemorrhagic shock due to injury no. 1 caused by sharp,
pointed, penetrating, cutting weapon and injury no. 1, was located
on the left side lateral outer aspect of the chest and on removing
the stitches he found 5.5 cms x 1 cm. x chest cavity deep incised
penetrating wound vertically obliquely placed in 7 th IC space on
the outer aspect of left side of chest.
He specifically deposed that the extra vasation was more
than what was seen in the surgical extension. On being confronted
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
with the weapon (Exhibit-18), the doctor opined that injury no. 1
can be caused by a sharp, pointed, penetrating, cutting weapon
like a knife and he described injury no. 1 as a comprehensive
injury where this incised penetrating wound can be caused by the
knife shown to him.
15. The two witnesses, PW-13, Sachin Padgaonkar and PW-14,
Prasad Kubal have categorically deposed upon the assault on
Francis alias Miranda and since he himself stepped into the
witness box, he had categorically deposed that Zenito was carrying
a knife and removed his knife and started blindly swinging it. He
first assaulted Johnny with a knife and according to Miranda, he
was even stabbed twice by the side of his abdomen and he was
stopped by Prakash and told not to move ahead. He was taken by
Prakash to Goa Medical College and as per this witness, he fell
unconscious in the hospital. The credibility of this witness is tried
to be brought into question by referring to his various FIRs
registered against him along with the chapter cases, but for me
this itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the witness and who is
found to be corroborated by PW-13, Sachin and PW-14, Prasad.
16. PW-19, Dr. Rajesh Patil attached to GMC Bambolim,
deposed that he had examined Francis D'Souza in his unit when
he was admitted on 10.05.2009 and he was discharged on
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
06.07.2009. According to him, the patient was admitted with a
history of assault i.e. stab injury on the abdomen, and he
described the condition of the patient as below:-
"The said patient had suffered stab injury on the
abdomen, laceration of 4 x 2 x 6 cms with small bowel
pouting out of abdomen, another laceration 5 x 3 x 6
cms present on the interior abdominal wall. Patient
was operated. Small intestine repair was done and the
wounds were closed in layers. Patient improved and
discharged on 06.07.2009. Nature of injuries
dangerous. I say that the aforesaid injuries can be
caused by sharp objects. Shown to me knife and glass
pieces. I say that the said injuries can be caused by the
aforesaid sharp objects."
The medicolegal certificate in respect of Francis D'Souza
(Exhibit-146), refer to the stab injuries on the abdomen and
contain reference to the operative treatment undergone by him.
The diagnosis in the medico legal certificate note thus:-
"Penetrating injury to the abdomen with perforation of
abdominal viscus with Acinetobacter septicemia."
17. Another witness who had examined the victim, Francis
D'Souza is PW-6, who issued the hurt certificate, while he was in
casualty in GMC hospital and the hurt certificate issued by her
(Exhibit-54) referred to the stab injury on the left side of
abdomen, being described as grievous injury along with the
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
incised wound 10 cms. below and lateral to the first stab injury
being described as simple injury. All the injuries are opined to be
inflicted by a sharp object. The hurt certificate also has also
recorded the history given by the patient's relative being assaulted
by a knife and broken bottles at Siridao beach.
18. In addition to the aforesaid witnesses, the pancha witnesses,
including PW-2 and PW-4, who acted as panchas on the
attachment of clothes of the Accused and the victim, Francis were
also examined. However, the clothes being sent for analysis, the
CFSL did not yield any support to the case of the prosecution.
However, PW-8, the panch on the spot panchanama conducted on
11.05.2009 in the presence of the Complainant, gave the
description of the shack as well as the area outside the shack. He
noticed some blood stains and pieces of beer and soft drink bottles
lying on the spot. A knife was seen lying near the log with some
blood stains. The knife was described as having a sharp edge on
one side and on the other side, having 'V' shaped cut like a saw.
The knife was seized, packed and sealed in an envelope and he
signed the sketch panchanama and in his presence, the seals were
put including on the knife (Exhibit-18).
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
Apart from this, the Investigating Officer who conducted the
arrest and attachment panchanama, PW-16 and PW-20, were
examined as the Investigating Officers.
19. It is in light of this evidence being placed before the Sessions
Judge, during the trial in Sessions Case No. 41/2009, who tried
the Accused for an offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC as
they faced a charge levelled by the prosecution that all the Accused
persons, with their common intention committed culpable
homicide not amounting to murder by causing death of Santosh
and Johnny Fernandes and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 304 of IPC and with their common
intention they also assaulted Francis Miranda and with such
intention and under such circumstances that if by that act, they
had caused the death of Francis Miranda, they would have been
guilty of murder and causing hurt to him and therefore, they have
committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with
Section 326 of IPC.
The Accused, having pleaded not guilty, were confronted
with the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and on
appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court acquitted Accused
Nos. 2 and 3 as no evidence of their involvement emerged during
the course of the trial. However, relying upon the eyewitnesses,
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
PW-10, who himself suffered injuries as well as PW-13 and PW-14
read with the evidence of PW-6, Laura D'Souza and the evidence
of the Doctors who conducted a postmortem on the body of the
deceased, the Trial Judge reached the following conclusion:-
"Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact and the
fact that accused no.1 started stabbing Johnny
Fernandes, Santosh Kalel and Francis D'Souza alias
Mirand only when accused no.1 was being brutally
assaulted by aforesaid persons alongwith other
persons who started pelting empty beer and soda
bottles on accused no.1 after chasing accused no.1 who
had run away from the shack, it is clear that the
accused no.1 started stabbing the said persons more
out of sudden provocation. In Sessions Case
No.15/2010, the medical report pertaining to accused
no.1 shows grievous injuries suffered by the accused on
his body due to stabbing with knife and broken glass
bottles. Hence, the conclusion which emerges is that not
only the accused no.1 stabbed both the deceased
persons without any premeditation, in a sudden fight,
in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without having taken undue advantage as per
Exception 4 of section 300 IPC but also that accused
no.1 whilst deprived of the power of self control by
grave and sudden provocation, caused the death of the
persons who gave the provocation and thus acted
within the purview of Exception 1 of section 300 IPC.
The aforesaid offence comes within the purview of
section 304 Part II IPC since the evidence does not
show that the accused no.1 had stabbed the deceased
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
persons with the intention of causing death or of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
but on the other hand the evidence on record shows
that with the aforesaid stabbing with knife, the accused
had knowledge that he was likely to cause death but
without any intention to cause death."
With the aforesaid reasoning, Accused No. 1, Zenito was
found guilty of committing an offence under Section 304 Part II
and Section 326 of IPC
20. While handing over the sentence, the Court took into
consideration that the Accused Zenito was aged 20 years when the
offence took place, he himself sustained grievous injuries, was
sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 304 Part II and also sentenced to undergo
three years of rigorous imprisonment for being convicted under
Section 326 of IPC. Both sentences are directed to be run
concurrently.
21. Let me now turn to Sessions Case No. 15/2010 arising out of
FIR No. 32/2009 filed against five Accused persons, they being
charged for committing offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307
and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and as they along with the
two deceased persons, Johnny and Santosh, faced accusation of
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
being members of unlawful assembly, thus, committing an offence
punishable under Section 143 of IPC and on being armed with
deadly weapons, to achieve the common object of killing Zenito
Cardozo as the charge read thus:-
"Fourthly, you all the accused alongwith said
deceased accused, on the same date, time and place as
mentioned in the first charge, were members of
unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the
common object of such assembly, namely to kill Zenito
Cardozo committed an offence of rioting with deadly
weapons and thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 148 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Fifthly, you all the accused alongwith said
deceased accused, on the same date, time and place as
mentioned in the first charge, you all accused in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly,
assaulted said Zenito Cardozo with knife and broken
beer and soda bottles with intention and under such
circumstances that if by that act, you had caused the
death of said Zenito, you would have been guilty of
murder and also caused hurt to said Zenito and thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 307 r/w
section 149 of IPC and within my cognizance."
They also faced charge under Section 323 read with Section
149 of IPC for causing hurt to Domnic Nazareth.
22. We have two Appeals arising out of judgment in Sessions
Case No. 15/2010 i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2016 filed by
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
Sachin Padgaonkar (Accused No. 4) and Criminal Appeal No. 53 of
2016 filed by Prasad Kubal (Accused No. 3).
In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the
prosecution in this case examined 15 witnesses including the
Complainant, Judas Fernandes (PW-6) and other witnesses
present on the spot being examined are Mahavir Nadar (PW-1),
who is Accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 41/2009, Domnic
Nazareth (PW-2) i.e. Accused No. 3 in Sessions Case No. 41/2009
and Zenito Cardozo (PW-3), Accused No. 1 convicted in Sessions
Case No. 41/2009, PW-7, Ms. Julia Dias (wife of the Complainant)
and PW-9, Anand Kauthankar. In addition, PW-14, Dr. Rajesh
Patil is examined to establish the injuries sustained by Zenito.
23. I have perused the evidence lead before the Sessions Judge
in support of the charges levelled against the five Accused persons.
The Complainant, Judas Fernandes, PW-6, who had lodged the
complaint on 10.05.2009, deposed that he, along with his wife and
aunty, had gone for a picnic at Siridao beach and he had phoned
the sister of Zenito asking whether she would like to join, but she
refused and asked him to spare the jeep. Further, Zenito collected
the jeep and, on his request, returned back with the jeep along
with Mahavir and Domnic. According to the Complainant, Francis
alias Miranda, called Zenito inside the shack and he was
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
reprimanded and as per his version, all the Accused persons
started assaulting Zenito with soda bottles, beer bottles and
Johnny, the deceased, assaulted him with a knife. Accused No. 1
was also armed with a beer bottle and knife and when this witness
attempted to rescue Zenito, even he was attacked and he sustained
injury on his stomach with the bottle and he ran away from the
spot when he called Zenito's sister and informed her about the
assault. His extensive cross examination has brought in some
contradictions as compared to his version in the complaint, but it
do not affect the case of the prosecution. His complaint
categorically assigns a role to Miranda, Kasti, Johnny, Santosh
and three other persons, as it mention that they started assaulting
Zenito with a knife and broken beer bottles and he went to rescue
Zenito and even one boy from the group came to assault him with
a broken bottle, but due to fear, he ran away.
24. Corroborating the said version is the evidence of Julia Dias,
PW-7, the wife of the Complainant, who deposed that when Zenito
came there between 3:30 to 4:00 p.m., they were packing the
things and Zenito was called by a group of people in the shack and
she also deposed about assault on Zenito with bottles causing
injuries to him, but she admit that she was unaware who was
assaulting him, since she was standing at a distance, but she
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
identified Accused No. 1 and one person who expired and
according to her, they were assaulting Zenito. She deposed that
Zenito was badly injured in the incident and became unconscious,
but he was still assaulted and her husband went to rescue him, but
ran away from the spot due to fear and thereafter, all persons who
assaulted Zenito also ran away from the spot.
25. The key witness in this case is Zenito Cardozo, being
examined as PW-3, who is the prime Accused in the counter
complaint. PW-3, Zenito in sync with the Complainant, deposed
that he went to collect the jeep as per his sister's instruction and
when he was asked to return the jeep back to the beach, he was
accompanied by Mahavir and Domnic. According to him, he heard
someone calling from the shack and when he entered, he saw
Miranda who asked him to sit and admonished him in abusive
way.
He categorically deposed that besides Accused No. 1,
Johnny and Santosh were also present in shack and Johnny
slapped Mahavir and at the same time, Miranda caught hold of his
collar and pushed him and this act was followed by all Accused
assaulting him with kicks, blows and by breaking bottles on his
head. As he was trying to run away out of the shack, Miranda
caught hold of him and stabbed him on his left thigh and both
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
buttocks and he received 18 to 19 stab injuries from a knife and
bottles. Accused No. 5 was encouraging them and according to
Zenito, he received fracture injuries on his head, nose, in between
his eyebrows below the eye and he collapsed outside the shack and
became unconscious. As per Zenito, he was admitted in GMC for
10 days and was discharged thereafter. As per Zenito, he never
knew the reason of the assault as he did not have enmity with the
Accused persons and prior to the incident, he knew Miranda,
Accused No. 1, Johnny and Poko, Accused No. 5 and during the
identification parade, he identified Accused No. 3, Prasad Kubal
and Accused No. 4, Sachin Padgaonkar. He identified the clothes
worn by him on the date of the incident and he also identified the
knife (Exhibit-18) which was used to assault him.
In cross examination, he was specifically questioned about
the cases registered against him in different Police Stations and
denied the suggestion that Accused No. 1 was not having any
weapon. He gave a categorical admission as below:-
"I had seen Accused No. 1 even prior to the incident, but
I was not knowing him earlier. Prior to the incident I
was not knowing the other Accused persons who are
present today. I was brought to Agassaim Police
Station after 10 days of the incident. Accused Nos. 3
and 4 and myself were in the same judicial custody. It
is true that before identification parade, I had seen
Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the judicial custody. It is not
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
true to suggest that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were not
present in the shack."
He denied the suggestion that no assault was mounted on
him and also denied the sugg estion that he could identify Accused
Nos. 3 and 4 only because he had seen them in the judicial
custody.
26. Supporting his testimony is the deposition of PW-1, Mahavir
Nadar and Domnic Nazareth, PW-2 as they were accompanying
him in the jeep when he reached the spot. As per Mahavir, when
they reached the shack, all the Accused persons were present and
he gave the names of the Accused Nos. 1 to 5. He mentioned that
even Johnny and Santosh were in the shack and Accused No. 1,
Miranda called him. According to him, Accused No. 5 was also
known as Poko.
As per PW-1, Miranda called Zenito and abused him and
Prakash instigated Miranda to assault Zenito and verbal
altercations took place between them. Accused No. 1, Miranda,
thereafter caught hold of the shirt of Zenito and pushed him down
and Accused No. 1 was assaulted with a knife and Accused Nos. 2,
3, 4, 6 and 7 assaulted with bottles. Prakash, Accused No. 5 was
instigating by supplying bottles of soda and beer and despite
praying by Domnic and Judas, the Accused continued the assault
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
and Accused No. 1 was armed with a knife and therefore, they ran
away from the spot. Zenito was left bleeding on the beach and he
was shifted to GMC.
Domnic Nazareth, PW-2, deposed in sync with the
testimony of PW-1 when he stated that Accused No. 1 was armed
with a knife and he assaulted Zenito on his legs. According to this
witness, Accused No. 6, Johnny and Accused Nos. 1 to 4 started
assaulting him with bottles.
Another witness who was present on the spot is PW-9
Anand Kauthankar, who only refer to a fight between Zenito and
Miranda and he deposed that Zenito was attacked by the Accused
persons sitting in the Court. Though he did not know the names of
the Accused, he knew them by their faces. He also deposed that
Accused No. 1 was carrying a knife.
27. In order to corroborate the version of these witnesses and
the attack and the assault being mounted on Zenito, it is necessary
to refer to the evidence of PW-6, Dr. Laura D' Souza, who is
examined as a witness in Sessions Case No. 41/2009.
The said witness, apart from examining Francis D'Souza had
also examined Zenito Cardozo on 10.05.2009 when she was in the
Casualty and on examining him at 16:52 hours, she deposed that
he has sustained the following injuries:-
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
"1. Head Inj. plus linear fracture of left squamous
temporal bone duly commuted fracture of both nasal
bones as seen on CT scan of Head A. CLW admeasuring
1x0.5x0.5 cmts on left parietal region.
2. Fracture of frontal process of maxilla. A CLW
admeasuring 1x.05.x.05 cmts. At root of the nose.
3. CLW admeasuring 1x.05x.05 cmts on left infra
orbital region. X-ray of nasal bone 13817 show
commuted fracture of nasal bone and displacement of
lower fragment under upper fragment. Patient was
advised CT scan of Head X-ray of nasal bone chest X-
Ray and X-ray of left thigh.
4. Multiple stab inj. bearing from 1x1x1 cmts to
5x3x6 cmts on left lateral on posterial aspect on thigh
and buttock and on the right buttock. All inj. was
caused by sharp obj. less than 6.00 hrs duration. Inj. 1
to 3 were grievous in nature and inj. No. 4 was simple
in nature."
The hurt certificate of Zenito (Exhibit-55) is relied by the
learned Judge in Sessions Case No. 15/2010, which referred to the
injuries sustained by Zenito as grievous injuries, which included
the head injuries along with linear fracture of the left temporal
bone plus commuted fracture of both nasal bones, fracture of
frontal process of maxilla and multiple stab injuries caused by
sharp object.
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
28. Seven persons were arraigned as Accused when the
Agassaim Police Station registered an FIR on the basis of the
statement of the Complainant, Judas Fernandes (PW-6) and
charges were levelled against the Accused persons under Sections
143, 144, 147, 148, 307 and 323 of IPC read with Section 149 of
IPC. Two of the Accused persons, Johnny and Santosh being dead,
five persons faced the trial and on appreciation of the evidence,
the Sessions Judge acquitted Mr. Francis D'Souza, Accused No. 1,
Mr. Prasad Kubal, Accused No. 3 and Mr. Sachin Padgaonkar,
Accused No. 4 under Section 307 of IPC as well as Section 149 of
IPC as it is held that the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are not
attracted as the evidence on record do not suggest that it was the
intention on the part of the Accused persons to kill Zenito because
they were not aware that he would be coming to the shack and also
for the reason that the injuries were aimed on his thigh and
buttock and the pelting of broken bottles caused the head injury
and facial injuries.
However, as far as Section 149 of IPC is concerned, it is held
that it is not attracted since the said provision is attracted only
when an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly
and in the instant case, since the Accused persons had not formed
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
an unlawful assembly in prosecution of any common object to kill
Zenito, even Section 34 was not attracted.
Since no evidence was found against Accused No. 5, he was
acquitted of all the charges.
The Trial Judge, therefore, convicted the three Accused
persons for committing an offence punishable under Section 326
of IPC as grievous hurt was caused to Zenito with a knife and
broken glass bottles, and accordingly, the Accused were sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each on being convicted under Section 326 of IPC.
29. In Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016 filed by Zenito Cardozo,
the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lotlikar has urged that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
and he would submit that the Complainant, who is an eyewitness
did not support the case of the prosecution and PW-7, Hazel, an
interested witness did not render any assistance to the prosecution
and in any case, she is not a witness to the fight.
Apart from this, he would submit that PW-11 has also turned
hostile and in the wake of this, only three witnesses remained,
namely, PW-10, PW-13 and PW14 and according to him, PW-13
and PW-14 are interested witnesses as they form a part of group
that assaulted Zenito. Apart from this, it is his categorical
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
submission that their version suffers from inconsistency,
embellishments and contradictions, which go to the root of the
matter and is fatal for the prosecution.
It is his specific contention that the incident resulted
because of the provocation by PW-10 Francis D'Souza, in which,
the Appellant was grievously assaulted by broken glass by the
Accused persons and also with a knife and whatever he did was in
exercise of his right to defend himself or else he would have
succumbed to the injuries.
30. On perusal of the judgment rendered by the Trial Judge in
Sessions Case No. 41/2009, where two of the Accused stood
acquitted and Accused No. 1, Zenito, the Appellant (in Criminal
Appeal No. 50 of 2016) stand convicted, it is relevant to note that
he is charged under Section 304 of IPC, which at the outset
according to me, is an erroneous approach, in the wake of the
chargesheet being filed, as two persons have been done to death in
this incident, the charge ought to have been framed under Section
302 of IPC, but despite the chargesheet being filed under Section
302 of IPC, the charge was framed against the Accused persons
under Section 304 of IPC and only Zenito was convicted under
Section 304 Part II of IPC. The entire approach of the Trial Court
is highly erroneous as when the chargesheet accuse the Accused
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
persons of being responsible for murder and there is an accusation
of committing an offence under Section 302 of IPC, the Judge,
before the evidence could be lead, has come to a conclusion that it
is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder, ignoring the fact
that Section 304 does not create an offence, but merely provides
for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
However, at this stage nothing can be done as the prosecution has
not raised a challenge to the framing of charge under Section 304
and rather proceeded with the trial establishing the charge under
Section 304 instead of Section 302 and the judgment being
pronounced, sentencing Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part II of IPC, on a conclusion being drawn that
the Accused had no intention to cause bodily injury as was likely to
cause death, but had the knowledge that the injury is likely to
cause death. The whole approach of the Trial Judge is highly
inappropriate. But, since at this stage, the gross error that has
been committed is not possible to be rectified, in my considered
opinion, the conviction under Section 304 Part II of IPC and the
sentence of three years of imprisonment do not warrant any
interference as in any case, the Appellant has been in fact shown
much leniency as his act has been treated as falling within Part II
of Section 304 of IPC and hence, I am not persuaded to interfere
with the impugned judgment.
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
31. Mr. Rohan Desai, representing the Appellants in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 52 and 53 of 2016 has vehemently urged that the
conviction of the Appellants under Section 326 of IPC is
unsustainable as the learned Sessions Judge has failed to
appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and there is no
role clearly attributed to the said Accused persons. He has urged
before me that the witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, being interested
witnesses, have attributed assault by all Accused persons and have
suppressed the injury inflicted by the persons from other factions
and moreover, they have not identified the knife. According to
him, the version of these witnesses was only one-sided version and
the injured Zenito Cardozo (PW-3) had given an exaggerated
version which cannot be believed as he has several improvements
in his version, which is not to be found in the version of other
witnesses.
Mr. Desai has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Another1, in support of his submission that the Appellants,
Sachin Padgaonkar and Prasad Kubal, exercised their right of
private defence and he would rely upon the principles culled out in
the said decision regarding right of private defence.
Needless to state that I am bound by the principles flowing
from the decision of the Apex Court where self-preservation is
1 (2010) 2 SCC 333
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
recognized as a basic human instinct and it being also recognized
by the criminal jurisprudence, however, I must note that this right
is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the
necessity of averting an impending danger and not a self-creation.
Apart from this, it is worth to note that the right of private defence
commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is
coterminous with the duration of such apprehension, though it is
unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his
defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.
The well accepted principle of private defence being that the
force used by the Accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate
or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or
property.
When I appreciated the evidence of the injured, Zenito
Cardozo, whose version is, when he along with his friends Mahavir
and Domnic reached the beach, he heard someone calling from
inside, to meet Francis alias Miranda, who confronted him with
his behavior and who started the abuse.
32. As far as this version, the Accused persons, including the
two deceased persons were present in the shack and amongst
them Johnny (deceased) slapped Mahavir (PW-1) and Miranda
caught hold of Zenito's collar and pushed him down and
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
thereafter, he was assaulted by all Accused by means of kicks,
blows, a knife, bottles being broken on his head.
During the identification parade, he identified the two
Appellants in the identification parade as he deposed that he knew
Miranda, Johnny and Poko (Prakash Naik-Accused No. 5).
33. When the evidence of the injured PW-3 is compared with
the evidence of his two friends who accompanied him i.e. Mahavir
and Domnic, I find that they corroborate each other. Apart from
the fact that what is important is the evidence of the pancha
witness (PW-5) who carried out the panchanama of the scene of
offence and he refer to the seizure of a knife and broken bottle
pieces from the spot, which establishes the case of the prosecution.
Though I find that some doubt is raised about the manner in
which the test identification parade is carried out as it is urged
before me that PW-12, who depose about the procedure adopted
by her, did not strictly follow the procedure set out in the Criminal
Manual and moreover, there is a delay of one month to conduct
the identification parade, it is relevant to note that though he had
admitted in the cross examination that he had seen Accused Nos.
3 and 4 in the judicial custody, since he identified the said Accused
in the dock, merely because there is some discrepancy in the
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
conduct of the test identification parade, it would not absolve the
two Appellants, Prasad Kubal and Sachin Padgaonkar, before me.
34. PW-1, Mahavir, Accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No.
41/2009, in his examination in chief categorically deposed that he
knew all the Accused and he had given the names of Accused Nos.
1 to 5, who were present in the shack where Zenito was called and
thereafter, were assaulted by all the Accused persons.
Similarly, PW-2, Domnic Nazareth, Accused No. 3 in
Sessions Case No. 41/2009 also deposed that he knew the friends
of Prakash, Accused No. 5, by face and he identified Prasad and
Sachin, present in the Court as friends of Mr. Francis alias
Miranda.
Since the testimony of the witnesses is in sync with one
another, in my opinion, there is no doubt about the identity of the
Appellants and the role attributed to them as the injured (PW-3)
along with the eyewitnesses, who deposed that all the Accused
persons mounted an assault on Zenito. Taking into account the
nature of evidence of Dr. Laura D'Souza (PW-6), who had deposed
about the injuries sustained by him, in my opinion, the Trial Judge
has been lenient in convicting the Accused only under Section 326
of IPC and acquitting them of the charge under Section 307 of IPC
and since I am of the view that the defence of the Accused that the
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
injuries were caused by way of private defence, is not borne from
the record as I find that Zenito was mercilessly assaulted and with
the hurt certificate on record, in my opinion, the injuries caused
are not by way of right of private defence as these particular two
Appellants have not sustained a single injury.
35. The reliance placed by Mr. Desai on Nathi Lal & Others
Vs. State of U.P. and Another2, laying down the procedure to
be followed by the Trial Court, I do not find any infraction as what
is expected is that each case is to be decided on the basis of
evidence on record without being influenced by the evidence or
arguments in the cross case and the judgment to be pronounced
by the same Judge one after another and I find that this is exactly
the procedure that is followed by the Sessions Judge, who
pronounced the judgment in Sessions Case No. 41/2009 on
29.07.2016 and in Sessions Case No. 15/2010 on 30.07.2016. The
common evidence relied upon is only the evidence of the Dr. Laura
D'Souza who was examined in Sessions Case No. 41/2009
(Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016) as she happened to be the
Doctor, who deposed about the injuries sustained by Zenito and
she also examined Johnny as well as Francis, therefore I am not
subscribed to the submission of Mr. Desai that the parameters laid
down in Nathi Lal (supra) have not been adhered to.
2 1990 (Supp) SCC 145
10th October 2025
CRIA 50, 52 AND 53 OF 2016.ODT
36. Finding no merit and substance in all the three Appeals as I
find that there is no scope for any interference in the findings
rendered by the learned Trial Judge while convicting Zenito
Cardozo (Accused No. 1) in Sessions Case No. 41/2009 (Criminal
Appeal No. 50 of 2016) and Mr. Prasad Kubal (Accused No. 3) and
Mr. Sachin Padgaonkar (Accused No. 4) in Sessions Case No.
15/2010 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 52 and 53 of 2016) and by
upholding the findings recorded along with the sentences
imposed, the Appeals are dismissed.
Since the Appellants before me are already on bail, the
respective Counsel undertake that the Accused shall surrender
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa on or
before 10.11.2025 and shall be taken in custody for undergoing the
balance sentence imposed on them by impugned orders.
BHARATI DANGRE, J.
Signed by: ESHA SAINATH
VAIGANKAR
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 14/10/2025 19:39:19 10th October 2025
