Bombay High Court
Sagar Ashok Salve vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2025:BHC-AS:44557-DB
:1: APEALS--742-23+J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[1] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.742 OF 2023
Kamlesh Narayan Talekar .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
.....
WITH
[2] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.670 OF 2023
Sagar Ashok Salve .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
.....
WITH
[3] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.674 OF 2023
Suraj Vijay Singh .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
.....
WITH
[4] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.602 OF 2023
Sachin Keshav Margaj .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
.....
WITH
[5] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.640 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2025
1 of 48
Deshmane(PS)
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:40:18 :::
:2: APEALS--742-23+J.odt
Govind Kishan Waghela .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
-----
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry Advocate a/w. Anush Shetty for the
Appellant in Appeal No.742/2023 and Appeal No.602/2023.
Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani, Advocate a/w. Khan Abdul Wahab, Mayanka
S.R., Advocate for the Appellant in Appeal No.670/2023 and Appeal
No.674/2023.
Mr. Amrish Salunke, Advocate a/w. Shraddha Shinde, Durgesh
Pandey, Dipali Patil for the Appellant in Appeal No.640/2023.
Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 1st OCTOBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th OCTOBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
[PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]
1. All these Appeals are decided by this common judgment
because they arise out of the same Sessions Case and the same
impugned judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, the
Appellants are referred to by their status as the original accused
before the trial Court. The Appellants were the accused in Sessions
Case No.788/2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Greater Mumbai. The Appellant - Kamlesh Talekar in Criminal
2 of 48
:3: APEALS--742-23+J.odt
Appeal No.742/2023 was the original accused No.1, the Appellant -
Sagar Salve in Criminal Appeal No.670/2023 was the original
accused No.2, the Appellant - Suraj Singh in Criminal Appeal
No.674/2023 was the original accused No.3, the Appellant - Sachin
Margaj in Criminal Appeal No.602/2023 was the original accused
No.4 and the Appellant - Govind Waghela in Criminal Appeal
No.640/2023 was the original accused No.5.
2. The learned Judge, vide his judgment and order dated
29.3.2023, convicted and sentenced the accused as under :
i. They were convicted for commission of the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and were
sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default to suffer RI for six months;
ii. They were convicted for commission of the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and were
sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default to suffer RI for six months;
iii. They were convicted for commission of the offence punishable
under Section 120-B of IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for
3 of 48
:4: APEALS--742-23+J.odt
life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to suffer
RI for six months;
iv. They were convicted for commission of the offence punishable
under Section 143 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer SI for
six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default
to suffer SI for one month;
v. They were convicted for commission of the offence punishable
under Section 144 and were sentenced to suffer SI for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to suffer SI
for one month;
vi. They were convicted for commission of the offence punishable
under Section 147 and were sentenced to suffer SI for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to suffer SI
for one month;
vii. The accused were acquitted from the charges of
commission of the offence punishable under Section 324 of
IPC.
viii. All the substantive sentences were directed to run
4 of 48
:5: APEALS--742-23+J.odt
concurrently. They were granted set off under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.
3. Heard Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry, learned counsel for the
Appellants in Appeal Nos.742/2023 & 602/2023, Mr. Gaurav
Bhawnani, learned counsel for the Appellants in Appeal
Nos.670/2023 & 674/2023, Mr. Amrish Salunke, learned counsel for
the Appellant in Appeal No.640/2023 and Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde,
learned APP for the Respondent-State.
4. The prosecution case is that the deceased in this case
Ganesh Ghadigaonkar @ Babu, Gurdipsingh Nagpal and Shekhar
Patil were arrested in connection with C.R. no.41/2015 registered at
RCF Police Station on 11.2.2015 on the allegations of attempting to
commit murder of the accused No.1 herein Kamlesh. Subsequently,
they were released on bail. Therefore, there was enmity between
Ganesh and Kamlesh. The incident, which is the subject matter of
this case has occurred on 15.6.2015. In the night of 14.6.2015,
Gurdipsingh, his friend Gaurav Kochar and one Ashish had met and
were chitchatting. Ganesh met them. All of them decided to have a
drinking session. They went to Rasika Bar at Ghatkopar. They spent
5 of 48
:6: APEALS--742-23+J.odt
about three hours there. Ashish went home. They then decided to
have food. Therefore, they came to Chembur Camp area. They first
went to Zaika Hotel but food was not available there. Therefore,
Gurdipsing went to Mayur Hotel. He ordered food. In the meantime,
Ganesh saw his friend Shinde at Daryasagar Hotel. He went to meet
him. Both the hotels were close to each other. While Gurdipsingh was
coming out, he saw that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 had approached
Ganesh. The accused No.1 gave a blow with a knife on the back of
Ganesh's head. The accused Nos.4 & 5 also joined the other three
accused. All of them assaulted Ganesh with the weapons like knives,
guptis and a chopper. Ganesh was brutally assaulted. Initially
Gurdipsingh tried to intervene, but, the accused No.3 tried to
assault him with his weapon. It brushed against Gurdipsingh's
elbow. He got frightened and went away at a short distance. He saw
the incident from that place. Their friend Gaurav who had
accompanied Ganesh and Gurdipsingh also witnessed the incident.
He was also threatened. After the assault, all the accused left the
spot on their motorbikes. Within a short time, a police van arrived
there. Gaurav had left the spot out of fear but Gurdipsingh was
present at the spot. He tried to help but by that time because of the
6 of 48
:7: APEALS--742-23+J.odt
brutal assault, Ganesh had already succumbed to his injuries. After
the police reached the spot, another vehicle was called and Ganesh
was kept in that vehicle. He was taken to Rajawadi hospital.
Gurdipsingh was taken to Chembur police station. His statement was
recorded. It was treated as an FIR. The offence was registered vide
C.R. No.157/2015 at Chembur police station. The FIR was lodged
at 1.20 a.m. in the night on 15.6.2015. The investigation
commenced. Gurdipsingh showed the spot of incident to the police.
The spot panchnama was conducted. In the meantime, Gaurav was
also called by the police. His statement was recorded. Ganesh was
taken to Rajawadi hospital as mentioned earlier, but, he was already
dead. Inquest panchnama was conducted. His clothes were seized.
There was a small foldable knife in his hand. It was seized. His dead
body was sent for postmortem examination. The investigation
continued. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested in the early hours
on 15.6.2015.
5. The accused No.3 was arrested on 16.6.2015. The
accused No.4 was arrested on 20.6.2015 and the accused No.5 was
arrested on 26.6.2015.
7 of 48
:8: APEALS--742-23+J.odt
6. During the investigation, the clothes of the accused were
seized. The clothes of the accused Nos.1 and 2 were seized at the
time of their arrest. The other accused produced their clothes from
their house. Three sharp weapons were recovered at the instance of
the accused No.1. Two weapons were recovered at the instance of
the accused No.5. All the articles were sent for Chemical Analysis.
The C.A. report shows that the clothes of all the accused, the clothes
of the deceased, the seized weapons and the small knife found in the
hand of the deceased were all stained with blood, but, the blood
grouping was inconclusive. At the conclusion of the investigation,
the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court
of Session.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses.
Out of them, two eye witnesses were important. The other witnesses
were pancha witnesses, the medical officer and the police witnesses
including the investigating officers and the carriers of the muddemal
articles to the FSL Kalina.
8. The defence of the accused was of total denial. They
examined one defence witness i.e. one Shinde who was a friend of
8 of 48
:9: APEALS--742-23+J.odt
the deceased. According to him, he had seen the incident in which
four to five unknown persons had assaulted the deceased. He was
knowing all the accused as well as the two eye witnesses in this case,
but, according to him the assault was caused by the unknown
persons.
9. The learned Judge considered the evidence on record,
the defence led by the accused and the arguments. The learned
Judge believed the prosecution witnesses i.e. mainly the eye
witnesses and also the evidence of recovery. He relied on the C.A.
report showing presence of blood on the articles. He disbelieved the
defence witness. The learned Judge, based on these circumstances
and evidence convicted and sentenced the Appellants, as mentioned
earlier.
10. In this case, undoubtedly, the evidence of all the eye
witnesses is important. Two witnesses are examined by the
prosecution and one witness is examined by the defence. Their
evidence determines the decision of this case. Therefore, their
evidence is required to be considered with greater care than the
other evidence.
9 of 48
: 10 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
11. PW-1 Gurdipsingh Nagpal was the first informant and an
eye witness. He deposed that the deceased Ganesh was his friend.
On 14.6.2015, he was sitting with his friends Gaurav (PW-5) and
Ashish near Gandhi market area. At about 9.00 p.m., Ganesh came
there. He asked PW-1 as to why PW-1 was not meeting him. PW-1
told him that his father had told him to be cautious after he was
released from jail. All of them had a little conversation and then at
10.30 p.m., Ashish suggested that they could go to have drinks. They
went to Ghatkopar. They went to Rasika Bar at Ghatkopar. They
were in the bar till 12.30 in the night. Ashish left from there itself. He
went to Vikhroli. PW-1 along with PW-5 Gaurav and the deceased
Ganesh went to Chembur at around 12.45 a.m.. First they went to
Zaika hotel to have food but there was no food there at that time.
Therefore, PW-1 and Ganesh crossed the road for going to Mayur
hotel, which was across the road. Gaurav waited on one side of the
road and Ganesh and PW-1 crossed the road. Ganesh saw his friend
near Daryasagar Bar and he went to talk to him. PW-1 proceeded to
take the food parcel from Mayur hotel. Ganesh met his friend
Shinde. They were having conversation. PW-1 came out of Mayur
hotel. He saw that the accused No.1 Kamlesh, the accused No.2
10 of 48
: 11 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
Double and the accused No.3 Bittu came there. They encircled
Ganesh. The accused No.1 Kamlesh took out a knife from a bag and
gave a blow on Ganesh's head. PW-1 tried to intervene but the
accused No.2 took out some weapon like gupti from a wooden cover
and assaulted PW-1. According to PW-1 it caused hurt to his hand as
he escaped the blow. PW-1 has named the accused No.2 as 'Double'
and the accused No.3 as 'Bittu'. These three accused started
assaulting Ganesh. The accused No.4 Sachin and the accused No.5
Govind also came there. All of them assaulted Ganesh @ Babu with
the weapons like knives, chopper and gupti. PW-1 got frightened
and did not go near them. After that, all the assailants ran away.
They ran towards Zama Sweets. The police vehicle arrived there
from the other side. PW-1 informed the police that the assailants had
run away towards Zama Sweets. The police took him to the police
station. They called another vehicle to take Ganesh to the hospital.
PW-1 lodged his complaint at about 1.20 a.m. in the night. It was
treated as an FIR and it is produced on record at Exhibit-48.
12. PW-1 then showed the spot of incident to the police at
about 3.30 to 3.45 a.m.. The spot panchnama was prepared. PW-1
identified the accused before the Court. He pointed out to each one
11 of 48
: 12 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
of them. He called their names as Sachin Margas, Govind. When he
called the name 'Double', the accused No.2 gave his name as Sagar
Salve. PW-1 named and pointed to the accused No.1 Kamlesh and he
pointed to the accused No.3 and called him 'Bittu'. The accused No.3
told his name as Suraj Singh. The court has recorded that PW-1 had
correctly pointed the accused before the Court.
13. PW-1 was shown the muddemal articles. He identified
Article-A as the chopper which was in the hands of the accused No.3
Suraj Singh. According to him, there were three knives in the hands
of the accused No.1 Kamlesh, the accused No.4 Sachin and the
accused No.5 Govind. He identified the clothes but could not say
which knife was in the hands of which accused. He identified a gupti
which according to him was in the hands of the accused No.2 Sagar.
14. PW-1 was cross-examined at length. In the cross-
examination, he stated that he did not go near the deceased after
the incident. The police arrived within five minutes. He did not
check whether Ganesh was dead or alive. He had a mobile phone
but he did not inform the police. He volunteered to say that the
police were seen coming there at that time. He could not say as to
12 of 48
: 13 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
whether anyone else was present there with the deceased and
himself because according to him he was stunned by the incident. He
could not say whether PW-5 Gaurav had checked whether the
deceased had died by then. Both of them did not help the police to
lift the deceased and put him in the vehicle. PW-1 was taken to
police station but was not taken to the hospital. According to him,
the deceased had died by the time he was taken to the hospital.
PW-1 was at the police station for two hours. Then he was taken to
show the spot. He left the spot at around 5.30 a.m. to 5.40 a.m. and
then he went to Rajawadi hospital. He was there for about four to
five hours. He stated that he had gone to another hospital for his
medical examination, but, he did not remember the name of the
hospital. That hospital was at Govandi. He did not know whether
there was a knife found in one hand of the deceased. He could not
remember whether there were blood stains on his clothes. He had
not produced his clothes before the police. He went to the house of
the deceased from the hospital at Govandi and then he went to the
police station. According to him, the constable had already taken his
medical report to the police station.
15. PW-1 was cross-examined about the earlier offence in
13 of 48
: 14 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
which connection he was arrested. It was in connection with C.R.
No.41/2015 of RCF Police Station under Section 307 of IPC. PW-1
himself, the deceased and one Shekhar Patil were the accused in that
case. The deceased's father Sambhaji had lodged another complaint
against the accused No.1 Kamlesh vide C.R. No.64/2015. The
subject matter of C.R. No. 41/2015 registered at RCF Police Station,
Chembur, Mumbai was the incident dated 11.2.2015 regarding an
assault on the accused No.1 Kamlesh. In that connection, Ganesh was
arrested and he was released after about 20 days from PW-1's release
on bail. After his release on bail in that connection, PW-1 had not
met the deceased till the date of incident when the deceased Ganesh
was assaulted to death. He stated that when they were travelling in
Ashish's car, he had seen Ganesh @ Babu having a nail cutter in his
hand. PW-1 could not tell the exact size. The evidence shows that it
was a foldable knife having 7 cm long blade and 8 cm long handle.
PW-1 could not state as to why the deceased was carrying that
weapon. He had not seen that weapon in Ganesh's hand when PW-1
had tried to lift him. He was shown Article 'G' produced in the Court
and he identified the same as a weapon which Ganesh was carrying
when they were travelling together in Ashish's car. PW-1 further
14 of 48
: 15 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
stated that he had seen that knife in a folded condition. It was folded
at the handle. He admitted that Article 'G' was a knife but he added
that it looked like a nail cutter. It was in a folded condition. He did
not know about the exact nature of dispute between the deceased
and the accused No.1 Kamlesh. He was cross-examined regarding
the exact spot where the deceased was lying. According to him, the
deceased was lying in front of the Daryasagar Hotel. There were
about five shops between Daryasagar Hotel and Mayur Hotel. When
he came out of Mayur Hotel he had not seen where Gaurav was
standing. PW-1 hid himself during the time when Ganesh was
assaulted. He hid himself in a gap near Mayur Hotel. He could not
say from where the assailants came to the spot. He further stated
that he had seen only one gupti and not three guptis used in the
incident. He was cross-examined regarding the number of guptis and
number of knives used in the assault. According to him, a mob of
persons had gathered when the police had arrived at the spot. He
had not paid attention whether Gaurav came to the spot. But he
had seen Gaurav at the police station subsequently. He did not know
where Gaurav had gone after he came out of Mayur Hotel. After the
incident, the police had taken him by a jeep to the police station.
15 of 48
: 16 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
The police had not sent him for medical examination. Some
omissions from his FIR were put to him, but they were of minor
nature. His FIR did not mention that Bittu had encircled the
deceased or that the accused No.1 took out a knife from the bag. He
could not explain why these statements were not mentioned in the
FIR, though he had stated so before the police. These omissions are
quite minor.
16. In the further cross-examination he stated that he was
taken to the Municipal Hospital for his treatment at about 11.00
a.m.. He was specifically cross-examined on behalf of the accused
No.3 regarding name of accused No.3 Suraj which he had mentioned
in the FIR as 'Bittu'. He denied the suggestion that he came to know
about the accused No.3's name as 'Bittu' only at the police station
after the incident. According to him, he had told the police that the
accused No.3 had a chopper in his hand. He could not explain why it
was not specifically mentioned in his FIR. He had told the police that
the accused No.3 had a gupti in his hand.
17. The FIR statement produced on record supports PW-1's
deposition. He had attributed a knife to the accused No.1, a gupti to
16 of 48
: 17 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
the accused No.2 Sagar, a knife to the accused No.4 Sachin, gupti to
the accused No.3 Bittu and accused No.5 Govind. He had referred to
the weapons as knives and guptis. In his deposition, he had stated
that all the assailants started assault by means of weapons like
knives, chopper and gupti. In his FIR, he has not referred to chopper
in particular. In his deposition he had stated that the chopper article
'A' was in the hands of Suraj Singh (accused No.3). The description
of the Articles in Exhibit-31 mentions that length of the chopper was
38 cm with 12 cm handle and 26 cm blade. The knife was 31 cm
long; and another knife was 29 cm long. One more knife was about
42 cm long. There was one gupti which was 47 cm long. Thus, all
the weapons were having similar lengths.
18. PW-5 Gaurav Gochar was another important eye witness.
He has described first part of the events viz going to Rasika Bar,
coming back to Mayur Hotel and described it in the same manner as
described by PW-1. He stated that Ganesh was talking to Shinde and
PW-1 Gurdipsingh had gone to Mayur Hotel for picking up a food
parcel. At that time all the accused came there. They encircled
Ganesh. The accused No.1 Kamlesh gave a blow with knife on the
back side of head of Ganesh. Gurdipsingh was near Mayur hotel. He
17 of 48
: 18 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
tried coming towards the spot but the accused No.2 Sagar took out a
gupti and tried to assault PW-1 Gurdipsingh. Therefore, PW-1 did not
intervene further. All the accused gave blows with knife, gupti and
weapons like chopper on the deceased. The accused No.3 Bittu had
stabbed Ganesh on his abdomen. After the assault, they went away
from the spot on their motor-bikes. PW-5 then returned home out of
fear. He identified all the accused by their names correctly before the
Court. He identified the Article 'D' knife as the weapon used by the
accused No.1 Kamlesh. He identified Article 'E' gupti used by the
accused No.3 Bittu @ Suraj.
19. In the cross-examination, PW-5 was asked about his
occupation. He was working as an electrician. He knew PW-1 since
past seven to eight years, and the deceased Ganesh since past six to
seven years. He was knowing that Ganesh and PW-1 were arrested in
connection with assault on the accused No.1 in the past. They were
released on bail. After the incident, he reached home at around 1.30
a.m. to 1.45 a.m.. The police came to his house at about 3.00 to
3.30 a.m.. He was asked to come to the police station. He went
there. In the meantime, he had not informed anything to his family
members. He stated that as he was frightened, he did not make any
18 of 48
: 19 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
enquiry about the deceased after the assault. He knew the house of
the deceased. It was about five minutes walk but he did not go to the
house of the deceased because he was frightened. He was standing
on the side of the Inlaks Hospital. He did not go to the opposite side
when the deceased fell down. He had not seen PW-1 running away.
He himself stayed at the spot for about only one or two minutes and
then left from there. He had seen PW-1 Gurdipsingh standing near
Daryasagar Hotel. After PW-1 had sustained injury he was seen
standing near Dubey Dairy. The sketch shows that Mayur Hotel was
on left side of Daryasagar Hotel and Dubey Dairy was on the right
side. He had not seen the police arriving at the spot till he was there.
He further stated that he knew the difference between chopper,
gupti and knife, but he could not say who had used the chopper.
According to him, PW-1 Gurdipsingh had suffered some bleeding
injury. He had not seen any knife in the hands of Ganesh, but,
according to him he had seen a nail cutter in his hand. According to
him, the deceased usually used to carry it in his hand. He did not
remember whether Article 'G' was with the deceased at the relevant
time. Article 'G' was a knife.
20. PW-5 was also cross-examined in respect of name of the
19 of 48
: 20 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
accused No.3. He did not remember whether he had stated name
'Bittu' or 'Suraj'. He did not remember whether he had referred the
accused No.3 by his name Suraj while narrating the incident to the
police. In further cross-examination, he stated that he could not
explain exact difference between a chopper, a gupti and a knife. In
the further cross-examination he accepted that the persons standing
in front of Zaika Hotel and Inlaks Hospital could not see Daryasagar
Hotel but, this question is put out of context. It was not asked to him
as to when he was present in front of Zaika Hotel. PW-5 has clearly
described where he was standing, and from that spot the incident
was visible. After the incident, he went back to his house. His
mother and sister were present in the house, but he did not inform
them. He lay in bed between 1.00 a.m. to 3.00 a.m.. Then the police
came and called him.
21. At this stage it is advantageous to refer to the defence
witness DW-1 Shinde because he also claims to be an eye witness to
the incident. He deposed that he was working as a Hotel Manager in
Daryasagar Bar. He knew PW-5 Gaurav, PW-1 Gurdipsingh and the
deceased Ganesh. He also knew all the accused by their names. He
knew all of them because they used to come to his hotel to drink
20 of 48
: 21 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
liquor. He knew the deceased because he used to visit Daryasagar
Bar frequently for having liquor. He then described the the incident.
According to him, four to five unknown persons approached the
deceased. There was hot exchange of words. There was a scuffle.
Ganesh was pushed. He fell down and he took out a Chinese knife
from his waist and assaulted one person in front of him. Two other
unknown persons assaulted Ganesh by a chopper and a sickle
repeatedly. Then they ran away. He went near the deceased Ganesh.
He told this witness that those four to five assailants were unknown
to him. He further told this witness that he assaulted them, and
therefore they assaulted him. According to this witness, he used a
phone of waiter Rajendra Gupta and dialed '100' and informed the
police that Ganesh was assaulted. The police came within ten
minutes. Ganesh was put on a stretcher and was taken to Rajawadi
hospital. The police made enquiries with him. He told them about the
incident. The police asked him who had accompanied Ganesh. This
witness told them that Gurdipsingh Nagpal (PW-1) used to be with him.
The police asked the address of PW-1. DW-1 showed PW-1's house to
the police. The police gave two slaps to PW-1 and brought him to
the police station. According to him at the time of incident PW-1 was
21 of 48
: 22 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
not present at the spot of the incident. He further deposed that, at
the time of incident, none of the accused was present at the spot of
incident. The police had recorded their statement. He identified
Article 'G' as the Chinese knife used by the deceased Ganesh. In the
cross-examination conducted by learned APP, he stated that the
police had told him that he had to give evidence in the Court. The
police had recorded his statement on two occasions. He admitted
that he had not narrated this incident to anybody prior to coming to
the Court for giving his evidence. He came to know that all the
accused were arrested after the incident within four to five days. He
did not go to Court from anywhere else but stated that the deceased
was assaulted by some unknown persons and not by the accused. He
denied the suggestion that since there were many cases pending
against the accused he was under their fear and, therefore, was not
giving evidence against them.
22. PW-10 Dr. Narendra Shinde had conducted the
postmortem examination. The postmortem notes were produced on
record at Exhibit-85. PW-10 has described the injuries caused to the
deceased. There were multiple injuries from Sr. Nos.1 to 40. All
these injuries were mainly on the head, neck, chest and abdomen.
22 of 48
: 23 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
There were incised wounds and stab wounds. Their size varied from
14 cm to 3 cm. They were of the length from range of 14 cm length
it was 3 cm length. There was fracture of parital bone and fracture of
base of skull. There was fracture to 3 rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th right ribs.
Both the lungs were ruptured. The liver was ruptured. The cause of
death was hemorrhagic shock due to head injury with skull fracture
with multiple incise wounds with multiple stab wounds with rupture
of vital organs. In short, it was a brutal murder.
23. These are the main witnesses in this case. There are other
panch witnesses but the arguments were advanced before us mainly
in respect of these eye witnesses. However, it is necessary to refer to
the other evidence in the form of pancha witnesses. PW-2 Shekhar
Patil was a pancha for inquest panchnama. He was knowing the
deceased. He deposed that the deceased was in the habit of having a
nail cutter with him. He had seen the same nail cutter in his palm
even at the time of inquest panchnama. The inquest panchnama is
produced on record at Exhibit-58. Exhibit-64 is a separate
panchnama for seizure of clothes of the deceased and seizure of that
particular knife which was found in the hand of the deceased. Said
article was produced on record as Article 'G'. It is described as a knife
23 of 48
: 24 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
having 7 cm long blade and 8 cm long handle. It was a foldable
knife. It had a small chain of 4 cm length. Thus, when it was folded
into the handle the length was 8 cm..
24. PW-3 Ismail Shaikh was a hostile panch. He was
connected with the panchnama for recovery of two knives at the
instance of the accused No.5 Govind Waghela. According to the
prosecution case, the two knives were taken out by him from a small
place behind a rock. The two knives were measuring 31 cm and 29 ½
cm in length. He had also produced his clothes from his house.
According to the prosecution case, those clothes were worn by him
at the time of incident. PW-3 had not supported the prosecution case.
25. PW-4 Mansingh Rokade was present at the time of
inquest panchnama when the instrument in the hands of the
deceased was seized. He described that instrument as a nail cutter.
The clothes of the deceased were recovered in his presence.
26. PW-6 PC Atul Sawant was a Muddemal Clerk. He had
carried the muddemal articles seized till 18.7.2015 to FSL. He had
carried those articles, viz., blood samples, hairs, nail clippings of the
accused, knives, the clothes of the accused and the deceased to FSL,
24 of 48
: 25 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
Kalina.
27. PW-7 Vilas Ingole was a pancha for the panchnama under
which the clothes of the accused No.3 were seized at his instance
from his house. The panchnama is produced on record at Exhibits-
76 & 76A. It does not specifically mention that there were blood
stains on the clothes. But the pancha had explained in the cross-
examination that the blood stains were not clearly visible and,
therefore, it was not mentioned so. The C.A. reports show presence
of blood on his clothes as well.
28. PW-8 Adhikrao Shinde had taken the deceased to
Rajawadi Hospital. He deposed that he received a message on their
wireless at about 1.30 a.m. on 15.6.2015 that a dead body was lying
in front of Daryasagar Bar, Chembur. Their staff on wireless van
went to the spot. The detection staff had already arrived there. They
were waiting for PW-8's van. PW-8 and others took the dead body to
Rajawadi Hospital. The doctor examined and declared him as dead.
According to him, Gurdipsingh was present on the spot and he was
asking the detection staff for help.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that he could not
25 of 48
: 26 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
give description of Gurdipsingh neither could he identify Gurdipsingh
when his evidence was recorded.
29. PW-9 Police Nayak Sheshrao Tiwale was a muddemal
clerk. He had carried 19 sealed packets to Kalina, FSL on 18.6.2015.
Those articles were found at the spot. He also carried the clothes of
the deceased and the clothes of the accused Nos.1,2 and 3.
30. PW-11 Satish Kamble was a pancha for the spot
panchnama which is produced on record at Exhibit-93. He has
deposed about the seizure of articles from the spot. According to the
prosecution case, the footwear of the deceased and the footwear of
the accused No.2 were seized from the spot. The spot of incident is
not really in dispute.
31. PW-12 Shashi Pandey was a pancha, in whose presence,
the clothes of the accused No.4 Sachin were seized on 26.6.2015.
They were seized from his house at his instance. He identified the
accused No.4 correctly in the Court.
32. PW-13 Atmaram Dait was a pancha, in whose presence
the accused Nos.1 & 2's clothes were recovered, but, he did not
depose about the same during his deposition. Therefore, his
26 of 48
: 27 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
signature on that panchnama was marked as Exhibit-101. He was
not declared hostile and was not cross-examined by the learned APP.
According to the prosecution, he was a pancha when accused No.4
had shown the place where he had hid himself at Ghansoli.
33. PW-14 Sampaati Aldar was a pancha in whose presence
the weapons were produced by the accused No.1, but, he did not
support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. The
panchnama is produced on record at Exhibit-105A, which mentions
that one gupti, one knife and one chopper were recovered at the
instance of the accused No.1 from near Ashish Theater from the
bushes. The gupti was 47 ½ cm long. The knife was 42 cm long and
the chopper was 38 cm long.
34. PW-15 HC Nana Gophne was the driver of a mobile van.
On that day, he was on patrolling duty at 1.30 a.m.. On 15.6.2015
ASI Patil received a message and directed this witness to take the
vehicle to the spot where the dead body was lying. He helped other
staff members to keep the dead body in the mobile van. PW-1
Gurdipsingh was present there. He informed about the incident to
the police. The statement of PW-15 was recorded on 18.6.2015 and
27 of 48
: 28 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
at that time he had stated that PW-1 had told him that 2-3 persons,
namely, Sagar and Sachin had assaulted the deceased.
35. PW-16 Rupesh Mohite was another pancha for recovery
of weapons at the instance of the accused No.1, but, he had also
turned hostile.
36. PW-17 API Salim Khan was attached to Chembur police
station at the relevant time. He received information about the
incident. He went to the spot. The detection staff was already
present at the spot. PW-1 Gurdipsingh was present there. Sr. PI.
instructed PW-17 to take Gurdipsingh to the police station. PW-17
recorded Gurdipsingh's statement at Chembur police station. In the
meantime, he received a phone call that the deceased was declared
dead by the doctors at Rajawadi Hospital. He recorded the complaint
of Gurdipsingh and registered the offence vide C.R. No..157/2015 at
Chembur police station mainly under Section 302 of IPC. He
supervised the preparation of inquest panchnama. A small knife
found in the right hand of the deceased was seized. He recorded the
statement of Sushil Shinde (DW-1). He recorded statements of other
witnesses including the police witnesses who had reached the spot.
28 of 48
: 29 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
He sent the articles for chemical analysis.
In the cross-examination, he stated that the phone call
was received on the landline of Chembur police station at 1.15 a.m.,
but, he did not know who had made the phone call. PW-1 was with
him when he went to the police station from the spot of incident. He
had not sent PW-1 to the residence of Sambhaji Ghadigaonkar i.e.
father of the deceased. He had not sent PW-1 for alcohol test. He
admitted that the clothes of the eye witnesses needed to be seized.
He had not sent PW-1 for medical examination. He admitted that
PW-1 was injured but he had not made any request for medical help.
He further volunteered that PW-1 told him that those were minor
injuries and he would take medical help later on. He proved
omissions from the FIR and the police statement. He had not seen
the CCTV footage of any of the hotels at the spot. He did not know
whether CCTV was installed there. He was there at the spot for
about half an hour. PW-1 had not accompanied him to the hospital.
In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused No.3 he stated
that he had not asked PW-1 about the full name and address of the
accused (referred to by PW-2 as Bittu). PW-1 had not referred to the
name 'Suraj Singh' when he took the name of 'Bittu'. He denied the
29 of 48
: 30 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
suggestion that 'Bittu' and 'Suraj Singh' were two different persons.
37. PW-18 API Malhari Kokre was another investigating
officer. He had gone to the spot. He had examined the spot. On
15.6.2015 he arrested accused No.3 Bittu @ Suraj Singh. On
17.6.2015 at the instance of Suraj his clothes were recovered from
his house. On 24.6.2015 he had shown the place where he had
concealed himself. On 26.6.2015, the accused No.4 Sachin Margaj's
clothes were recovered at his instance. On 26.6.2015, the accused
No.5 Govind was arrested. On 28.6.2015, the clothes and weapons
were recovered at the instance of the accused No.5 Govind. In the
cross-examination, he stated that the neighbours had confirmed that
Suraj Singh was Bittu, but, he had not recorded the statements of
neighbours because Suraj Singh had created terror and the witnesses
were not ready to give the statements.
38. PW-19 Sharad Jadhav was a pancha witness in whose
presence the clothes of the accused No.1 Kamlesh and the accused
No.2 Sagar were seized.
39. PW-20 PI Dnyaneshwar Kolham was another
investigating officer. Under his supervision, the weapons were
30 of 48
: 31 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
recovered at the instance of the accused No.1. The panchnama was
produced on record at Exhibit-105. The plastic bag with weapons
was recovered from the bushes near Ashish Theater. He identified
those weapons before the Court. They were a chopper, a knife and a
gupti.
40. PW-21 API Prakash Kalange had prepared the arrest
panchnama of the arrested accused No.1 and 2 on 15.6.2015. Their
clothes were seized in his presence.
41. PW-22 PI Viswanath Kolekar had completed the
investigation and had filed the chargesheet. PW-22 has referred to
the complaint dated 9.6.2015 made by the deceased Ganesh
expressing apprehension to his life from the accused No.1 Kamlesh
and the accused No.4 Sachin.
. This is the evidence led by the prosecution.
42. The defence counsel led by Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry
made the following submissions:
i. The entire prosecution case depends on the evidence of PW-1
and PW-5. PW-1 is not a reliable witness, which can be seen
31 of 48
: 32 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
from his evidence and his conduct. According to the
prosecution case he sustained the injuries on his right hand but
the prosecution has not produced any medical record to
support that case. The evidence of an injured witness is always
important and, therefore, if the prosecution was claiming that
he had suffered injuries during the incident, it was necessary
for the prosecution to have produced the medical certificate
regarding his injuries to establish his presence at the spot.
ii. PW-1 had a definite reason to implicate the accused falsely.
PW-1 himself was an accused in the previous offence in which
the accused No.1 Kamlesh was assaulted by the deceased and
PW-1 himself. Therefore, he had a grudge against the accused
No.1 and his friends. PW-1, therefore, was an interested
witness, and his evidence needs close scrutiny and independent
corroboration. Dr. Chaudhry relied on certain judgments in
support of this contention. However, there is absolutely no
quarrel about this proposition that the evidence of the
interested witness needs close scrutiny, particularly when he
has a vested interest in implicating the accused. The
proposition submitted by Dr. Chaudhry in this behalf is
32 of 48
: 33 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
acceptable and, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the
judgments relied on by him in that behalf.
iii. PW-1 has suppressed the genesis of the incident. A knife was
actually found in one hand of the deceased which clearly
meant that the incident was something else. The genesis was
suppressed by PW-1. He has not said a word about the
deceased using that knife against any of the assailants. PW-1
has deliberately described this as a nail cutter and not a knife.
When he was shown the Article 'G' he had to admit that it was
a knife and not a nail cutter. He had failed to explain why the
deceased was carrying a knife in his hand at the time of
assault.
iv. PW-1 has given deliberately false answers in respect of the
treatment he took for his injuries. First of all, no medical
papers were produced by the prosecution. PW-1, at some stage,
had stated that the medical papers regarding his injuries were
with one police constable. He has not even given the name of
the hospital where he had taken treatment for his injuries.
Initially, he had gone to Rajawadi hospital to see the deceased.
33 of 48
: 34 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
He was present there for about 4-5 hours, but he did not take
any treatment at Rajawadi Hospital. Instead, he claims to have
gone to a hospital at Govandi at 11.00 a.m.. He insisted that
the police did not send him for medical examination, but he
did not explain as to why his medical papers were with one
constable.
v. The learned Judge has acquitted the accused for causing
injuries to PW-1 and, therefore, all of them were acquitted
from the charges of commission of an offence punishable under
Section 324 of IPC.
vi. The conduct of PW-1 was completely unnatural. He did not
seek assistance from anybody after the assailants had fled from
the spot. He had not helped his friend's body to be kept in the
police van. He did not try to help him after the assailants had
left the spot and by the time the police had reached there. His
blood stained clothes were not seized. Those clothes could
have established his presence. The spot where he actually hid
himself is not clearly brought out by the prosecution. As per
PW-5, PW-1 was in front of Dubey Dairy, which on the other
34 of 48
: 35 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
side of spot of incident compared to Mayur Hotel. PW-1 claims
to have seen the incident from near Mayur Hotel.
vii. PW-1 has not described the weapons properly and
he has given contrary answers regarding the nature of
weapons.
viii. PW-5 was equally an unreliable witness. According
to him, the incident could not be seen from Zaika Hotel which
was inside the lane and he had admitted that from that spot
Daryasagar Hotel was not visible. PW-5 has also suppressed
the genesis of the incident, as he had not referred to the use
of a knife by the deceased. He had also described that weapon
as a nail cutter which was in the hands of the deceased. His
conduct is absolutely unnatural. After the incident he
immediately rushed back home. He lay on his bed between
1.00 a.m. to 3.00 a.m. untill the police came to take him to the
police station. He did not accompany his friend the deceased to
the hospital. He did not inform the father of the deceased,
who was staying nearby. He did not describe the incident in
sufficient particulars. According to Dr. Chaudhary he was a got
35 of 48
: 36 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
up witness.
ix. In addition to these statements, the learned Counsel Shri
Bhawnani, appearing for the accused No.3, submitted that
PW-1 had named accused No.3 as 'Bittu', but, there is no
evidence that the accused No.3 was known as 'Bittu'. No
independent evidence is led in that behalf. The prosecution,
therefore, has not established the identity of the accused No.3
and that he was known as 'Bittu'.
x. Learned counsel for the defence then referred to the evidence
of DW-1 and submitted that his evidence is absolutely reliable
and, therefore, based on this evidence the accused deserve to
be acquitted. They submitted that DW-1 Shinde admittedly was
present at the spot because his presence is mentioned by PW-1
and PW-5. DW-1 has stated that he was knowing all the
accused by names. He was also knowing PW-1, PW-5 and the
deceased by names. Therefore, if the accused Nos.1 to 5 had
assaulted the deceased, and if he had seen the incident he
would have definitely stated that the accused had assaulted the
deceased; but his case is specific. He has stated that the
36 of 48
: 37 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
deceased was assauted by unknown persons. He has not
suppressed the genesis of the incident, as he has stated about
the scuffle between the deceased and four to five unknown
persons during which the deceased was pushed. He fell down.
He got up. He took out his knife and gave a blow to one of the
assailants. This incident is more probable. He was a natural
witness because he was Manager at Daryasagar Hotel, which
was near the spot. The incident had taken place in front of
that hotel.
xi. As far as recovery of weapons and the clothes is concerned,
that evidence is innocuous because, though there was blood
found on the clothes of the accused, the blood grouping was
inconclusive. The prosecution has not established conclusively
that the clothes of the accused had the blood of the deceased.
The weapons were recovered from open space accessible to all.
Most of the panchas have turned hostile and, therefore, this
evidence cannot be used as a corroborative piece of evidence.
43. On the other hand, learned APP submitted that there is
no reason to disbelieve PW-1 and PW-5. They were the natural eye
37 of 48
: 38 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
witnesses. PW-1 had escaped the blow, as can be seen from the
evidence, and, therefore, there was no medical certificate mentioning
the injury. There were threats to those who came to help the
deceased and, therefore, the conduct of both PW-1 and PW-5 cannot
be said to be unnatural as they had tried to hide themselves and
could not help the deceased. The accused were carrying the deadly
weapons. Therefore, it was not possible for either of these witnesses
to have helped the deceased. The investigation had revealed that
Bittu and Suraj Singh were the names of the same person. The
neighbours and other witnesses could not be examined because of
the fear created by Suraj Singh. PW-1 and PW-5 corroborated each
other. They were the natural witnesses because they had
accompanied the deceased. They were friends. Both of them spoke
about the presence of each other. There is no evidence to show that
the deceased had used that knife. Therefore, merely because the
deceased was carrying a knife, it would not mean that there was
some other incident and not the incident as described by PW-1 and
PW-5.
44. PW-22 has stated that the deceased had lodged a
complaint only six days prior to the incident, expressing fear at the
38 of 48
: 39 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
hands of the accused. There was a clear motive for commission of
this offence because the deceased had assaulted the accused No.1 in
the earlier case. There were 40 injuries on the dead body. It was a
brutal murder. Therefore, the intention and design was clear, which
had not occurred on the spur of the moment as submitted by learned
counsel for the Appellants based on evidence of DW-1 Shinde as a
retaliation of the blow given by the deceased. There is corroborative
evidence of recovery of weapons and blood stained clothes. The
C.A.. report shows blood on the clothes and the weapons. The
defence witness is absolutely unreliable. He was under the fear of the
accused and had given evidence to support the accused.
45. We have considered these submissions. As rightly
submitted by learned counsel for the defence, the case depends on
the quality of evidence of the eye witnesses. It is also rightly
submitted that PW-1 at least can be termed as an interested witness.
Therefore, we have scrutinized his evidence closely. Though his
evidence is criticized by the learned defence counsel, we find that
there is hardly any infirmity in his evidence. Evidence of interested
witness, if found reliable can be accepted. PW-1 and PW-5 have
consistently deposed that they had met the deceased in the night at
39 of 48
: 40 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
around 9.00 p.m., then all of them had gone to Rasika Bar and had a
drinking session, one of their friend Ashish left from that place and
after that the deceased with these two witnesses decided to have
food at Chembur. PW-1 and PW-5 have consistently deposed about
the same, and this story is not destroyed in the cross-examination.
After that PW-1 went to Mayur Hotel to collect the food parcel. PW-5
waited across the road. The deceased and PW-1 had crossed the
road. The deceased, then, went to Daryasagar Hotel, which was in
the vicinity, to meet his friend Shinde i.e. DW-1. Though it was
submitted by learned counsel for the defence that PW-5 could not
have witnessed the incident as he had admitted that from the lane in
front of Inlaks Hospital the spot in front of Daryasagar Hotel was not
visible. However, that question is put out of context in the cross-
examination. PW-5 has never stated that he had remained in the lane
in front of Intaks Hospital and he had not gone with the deceased
and PW-1 towards Mayur Hotel. PW-5 has clearly stated that he
waited across the street and the deceased and PW-1 had crossed the
street to go towards Mayur Hotel. Therefore, both PW-1 and PW-5
were in a position to witness the incident.
46. PW-1 and PW-5 both consistently deposesd about the
40 of 48
: 41 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
incident in sufficient details. As the deceased was talking with DW-1
Shinde, all the accused came there. Initially, the accused Nos.1 to 3
assaulted him and then the accused Nos.4 & 5 also joined. After the
first blow was given to the deceased, PW-1 tried to reach there to
intervene but a blow was directed towards him, therefore, out of fear
he went back from the spot. Much emphasis was laid by the defence
counsel on the fact that the medical certificate showing his injuries is
not produced by the prosecution on record but the evidence shows
that he had not suffered a major blow on his hand. A blow was
directed towards him but it is not described that he had suffered a
serious bleeding injury worth mentioning. After that, PW-1 hid
himself in a gap near Mayur Hotel, and PW-5 stopped where he was.
During that time the deceased was assaulted. The assailants went
away. After that, PW-5 got frightened and returned home. After
witnessing the assault where not less than 40 injuries were caused to
the dead body, it is not unnatural that the witness would get
frightened. Therefore, there was nothing unnatural for PW-5 to rush
home and not tell this incident to anybody. Only his mother and
sister were at home and naturally he would not tell this incident to
those ladies. It is not as if he had gone to sleep. He lay on his bed. It
41 of 48
: 42 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
was a night time, between 1.00 a.m. to 3.00 a.m., by which time the
police came to call him. We do not find his conduct unnatural.
Though the deceased was his friend, but the manner of assault would
naturally cause deep fear in his mind. The important fact is that both
of them had described the incident consistently.
47. Dr. Choudhary submitted that the sketch shows that PW-5
had stated that PW-1 was on one side of the spot of incident, i.e.,
near Dubey Dairy; whereas Mayur Hotel was on the other side of the
spot of incident. However, as can be seen, PW-5 was totally under
fear. He had clearly seen PW-1 and the deceased going towards
Mayur Hotel and PW-1 then trying to help the deceased when the
first blow was given. Therefore, it does not matter whether PW-5
had seen PW-1 after the incident. PW-1's presence was clearly stated
by PW-5. Therefore, PW-1's presence at a short distance near Dubey
Dairy would not make much dent to the prosecution case.
48. Further emphasis was laid on the description of the
weapons and the confusion in the minds of both these witnesses.
Here, it must be noted that the length of these weapons was almost
similar as was mentioned earlier. Therefore, when five assailants
42 of 48
: 43 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
were assaulting the deceased with their respective weapons, it is
hardly expected that PW-1 and PW-5 would differentiate and
distinguish between a chopper, a gupti and a knife of same length
and would describe them in a greater details and would ascribe a
particular weapon to a particulate accused. Therefore, we do not
find much infirmity about description of the weapons given by both
the witnesses in their depositions and in the cross-examination as
well as in the FIR of PW-1.
49. Though it was argued that PW-1 is an interested witness
and in particular had vested interest because he was also an accused
along with the deceased in the earlier case lodged for the offence of
attempting to commit murder of the accused No.1, that by itself does
not mean that his evidence cannot be termed as a reliable piece of
evidence. In fact it shows the close friendship between the deceased
and PW-1. It makes him a natural witness. This has to be seen in the
light of the evidence of PW-5, who has described the incident right
from its inception till the actual assault. PW-5 admittedly was not an
accused in the prvious case, in which PW-1 and the deceased were
arrested. PW-5 definitely did not have any grudge against the
accused. Therefore, though he was a friend of the deceased, he had
43 of 48
: 44 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
no reason to implicate all the five accused falsely.
50. We do not find much substance in the submission that
the accused No.3 was not known as Bittu or at least no such
evidence is brought on record by the prosecution. The investigating
officer has given sufficient reasons as to why no witness in that
behalf could be examined. It was explained that those who knew
that the accused No.3 was known as 'Bittu' were the neighbours of
the accused No.3 and were under his fear. Apart from that, the
accused No.3 has not taken that specific defence in his statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. that he was not known as 'Bittu'. It was
only during the cross-examination that some suggestions were put
that he was not known as Bittu. More importantly PW-1 had
identified the accused No.3 correctly in the Court. Therefore, his
identity as one of the assailants is clearly established in the Court.
Since he was known to the accused there was no necessity to have
conducted the test identification parade.
51. Another important feature in this case is that all the
police officers have consistently depossed that when they reached the
spot PW-1 was present there at the spot. In fact he was taken to the
44 of 48
: 45 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
police station from the spot itself and his FIR was immediately taken.
The incident had taken at around 12.45 a.m.. The proforma of the
FIR shows that the police station was informed about the incident at
1.20 a.m. and the FIR was actually registered at 2.30 a.m.. There is
no time gap between the actual incident and registration of the FIR
to enable PW-1 to concoct a false story to implicate all the five
accused. No evidence is brought on record as to why he would
implicate the accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 though he had enmity only
against the accused No.1.
52. The evidence of PW-22 also shows that the deceased had
expressed clear apprehension only six days' before the incident that
he was apprehending for his life at the hands of the accused No.1
Kamlesh and the accused No.4 Sachin. This is an added feature in
favour of the prosecution. Therefore, the deceased always carrying a
small knife for self protection is not unusual. That does not mean
that he was the aggressor or that he had given the first blow to the
assailants.
53. As against the eye witnesses examined by the
prosecution, the evidence of DW-1 also calls for scrutiny and close
45 of 48
: 46 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
examination of his evidence. Admittedly, his presence was deposed
by PW-1 and PW-5. Therefore, he was present at the spot. The
question is whether he is deposing truthfully about the incident.
According to the defence, he was knowing the deceased, PW-1, PW-5
and all the accused by names and, hence he was familiar with all the
parties concerned. Therefore, when he deposed that four to five
unknown persons assaulted the deceased, that would exclude the
accused as the assailants. In this context some of the answers given
by him in his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the
prosecution are important. His statement was recorded by the police,
but, he has admitted that he had not disclosed this incident to
anybody before his evidence was recorded in the Court. This is quite
unnatural. He has described that he had seen the incident right from
the beginning. According to him, there was a scuffle between the
deceased and four to five unknown persons resulting in the deceased
giving the first blow and the assailants assaulting him thereafter. He
has further deposed that after the assault, he went near the deceased
and asked him about the incident. At that time the deceased told
him that he had assaulted an unknown person and, therefore, the
unknown persons assaulted him in retaliation. However, this part of
46 of 48
: 47 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
his deposition is absolutely unbelievable. Looking at the nature of
injuries caused to the deceased, all over his vital organs, right from
his head to his abdomen, it was not possible that the deceased would
be in a position to utter anything. He had suffered injuries to his
head, face, throat, neck, chest, and abdomen. All his vital organs
were damaged. Therefore, it is simply impossible that he would
describe the incident to this witness. Therefore, we find that DW-1 is
not describing the incident truthfully. Therefore, we are not
believing him at all.
54. Thus, we find that the prosecution has sufficiently
established its case through the evidence of the eye witnesses. In
addition, there are corroborative pieces of evidence in the nature of
recovery of weapons and recovery of clothes. However, the recovery
of weapon is from the place which was accessible to all and they
were not from the spot which were exactly not visible. Therefore,
not much importance can be given to the recovery of weapons.
55. As far as seizure of the clothes of the accused is
concerned, the C.A. report shows presence of blood but the blood
group is mentioned as 'inconclusive'. Therefore, it cannot unerringly
47 of 48
: 48 : APEALS--742-23+J.odt
point to the only possibility that the blood on the clothes of the
accused was that of the deceased. Therefore, not much reliance can
be placed on the recovery of weapons and clothes. Resultantly this
case only depends on the quality of the evidence of the eye
witnesses. As discussed earlier, we are satisfied that the evidence of
PW-1 and PW-5 is consistent, cogent and reliable. Based on their
evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt against all the accused. Therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned trial
Judge in convicting and sentencing the Appellants. With the result,
all the five Appeals are dismissed and the judgment and order dated
29.3.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai
in Sessions Case No.788/2015, is confirmed. With dismissal of the
Appeals, nothing survives in the pending Applications and the same
are also disposed of.
( SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE Date:
2025.10.14
16:45:43
+0530
48 of 48
