Bombay High Court
Gajanan Pundlik Waghmare vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Loni (Takli), ... on 15 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10935
1/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2023
Gajanan Pundlik Waghmare,
Aged 62 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Khirsana, Taluka Nandgaon
Khandeshwar, District Amravati. ...Appellant
// VERSUS //
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer of Police
Station Loni (Takli), Taluka Nandgaon
Khandeshwar, District: Amravati ... Respondent
Ms F.N.Haidari, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms Sonia Thakur, APP for the respondent no.1/State.
CORAM : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
Reserved on : 7th October, 2025.
Pronounced on : 15th October, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction dated 16th
June, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions
Trial No. 14 of 2017, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine
of ₹10,000/-, in default of which, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 6.10.2016, at around 8:30 p.m.,
while the informant Chhaya Waghmare (P.W.1) was cooking at her residence, she
Sknair
2/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
heard her husband using abusive language. Upon stepping outside, she saw her
husband engaged in a verbal altercation with Sunil Waghmare in the courtyard of
the latter's house. When she inquired, her husband informed her that Sunil
Waghmare is abusing his mother in filthy language, and hence the informant's
husband had approached him to pacify the situation.
As the informant attempted to escort her husband back home, the elder
brother of Sunil Waghmare, namely the present appellant, allegedly came out with a
knife, confronted her husband regarding the altercation with his brother, and
attacked him with knife blows. When the informant attempted to intervene, she also
sustained injuries. Subsequently, when her husband tried to shield her, the appellant
inflicted a knife injury to his chest.
The injured Vilas Meshram (P.W.2) was initially taken to Irwin Hospital and
thereafter referred to a hospital in Nagpur, but due to financial constraints, was
admitted to the clinic of Dr. Pankaj Bagde. The informant Chhaya Waghmare was
treated at the Government Hospital, Loni, where she lodged an oral report (Exh.
27), based on which a First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No. 338/2016
came to be registered under Section 307 IPC against the appellant on 7.10.2016.
3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced. The
appellant was arrested. The police prepared a spot panchnama and seizure
panchnama, and recorded statements of witnesses. Upon completion of the
investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Trial Court. The Trial Court
Sknair
3/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
framed a charge under Section 307 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, including
P.W.1 Chhaya Vilas Meshram (informant and injured) (Exhibit 26), P.W.2 Vilas
Uttamrao Meshram (injured) (Exhibit 30), P.W.3 Smt. Renuka Mahadevrao Pohane
(pancha witness) (Exhibit 33), P.W.4 Vijay Uttamrao Meshram (brother of P.W.2)
(Exhibit 44), P.W.5 Dr. Amit Gajananrao Kshar (Exhibit 47), P.W.6 Rajesh Sarvaraj
Pille (Exhibit 52), P.W.7 Sk. Yunus Sk. Yusuf (pancha witnesses) (Exhibit 57),
P.W.8 Dr. Rahul Kishor Hantodkar (Exhibit 70), and P.W.9 Dr. Raju Tukaramji
Banarse (medical officers) (Exhibit 73), and P.W.10 Vishal Murlidhar Khalase
(Investigating Officer) (Exhibit 78).
5. Upon closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, brought before this court through
Exhibit No. 89, wherein he denied all incriminating circumstances and claimed false
implication.
6. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge
concluded that the appellant had assaulted both P.W.1 and P.W.2 with a knife. It was
observed that the appellant initially inflicted injuries on both hands of P.W.2. When
P.W.1 intervened, she was assaulted on her right arm. Thereafter, when P.W.2
attempted to protect P.W.1, the appellant stabbed him in the chest. Further, it was
established that the appellant threatened the crowd that gathered at the spot,
declaring that both victims ought to die.
Sknair
4/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
7. Considering the nature of the weapon, the manner and location of injuries,
and the conduct of the accused, the Trial Court concluded that the appellant had the
requisite intention and knowledge to cause death, and accordingly convicted him for
the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
The present appeal is thus directed against the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court.
I now proceed to consider the present appeal preferred by the appellant,
which is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed
by the Trial Court under Section 307 of the IPC.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the medical evidence on
record does not support the prosecution's case of grievous and life-threatening
injuries. In particular, it was submitted that P.W.5-Dr. Amit Gajananrao Kshar, who
initially examined Vilas Meshram (P.W.2) on 6.10.2016, did not specifically opine
that the injuries sustained by P.W.2 were grievous in nature. The medical certificate
issued by P.W.5, marked as Exhibit 48, fails to clarify the severity or the potential
fatality of the injuries.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.8-Dr. Rahul Hantodkar, who
subsequently treated P.W.2, did not specify the duration of hospitalisation, which is
a material omission in establishing the seriousness of the injury. It was also argued
that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure at 2:30 a.m. on 7.10.2016, which the prosecution has treated as a dying
Sknair
5/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
declaration, does not mention whether the victim was conscious or medically fit for
giving such a statement at that odd hour.
10. It was argued that the assault was not premeditated but occurred in the heat
of the moment, and therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC,
particularly the intention or knowledge to cause death, were absent.
11. With respect to the injuries of P.W.1 - Chhaya Meshram, it was pointed out
that P.W.9 - Dr Raju Banarse, who examined her at PHC Loni, recorded a single
lacerated wound on the right elbow joint measuring 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm, which was
found to be caused by a sharp object. The healing period was estimated to be 5 to 6
days, thereby clearly indicating that the injuries were simple in nature and not
grievous.
12. Learned counsel also drew the Court's attention to the alleged contradictions
and omissions in the testimony of P.W.1, both in her deposition before the Court and
in her Section 164 CrPC statement, thereby urging the Court to treat her version
with caution.
13. It was further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and
has already undergone 3 years and 5 months of imprisonment. The appellant is also
stated to be a senior citizen aged about 65 years. In support of the plea for reduction
of sentence, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shamsher Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 476 of
2015). It was clarified that the appellant is not seeking acquittal, but is praying for a
lesser sentence, considering the mitigating circumstances.
Sknair
6/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
14. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
injuries sustained by P.W.1 and P.W.2 were clearly serious and life-threatening, and
the manner and sequence of the assault clearly establish that the appellant acted
with the requisite intention and knowledge to commit murder, thereby attracting the
rigours of Section 307 IPC.
15. The prosecution relied upon the Chemical Analysis Report, which revealed
that the blood found on the knife recovered from the appellant matched the blood
group "B", which is also the blood group of Vilas Meshram (P.W.2). It was
submitted that this constitutes clinching forensic evidence connecting the appellant
to the offence.
16. The learned Addl.P.P. further argued that both injured witnesses, P.W.1
Chhaya and P.W.2 Vilas, gave a consistent and cogent account of the incident,
which remained unshaken during cross-examination. Their ocular testimonies were
further corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by the three medical
witnesses (P.W.5, P.W.8, and P.W.9).
17. As regards the plea of absence of criminal antecedents, the learned Addl.P.P.
submitted that the gravity of the offence and the nature of the injuries inflicted
cannot be diluted merely on that ground, particularly when the intention to kill is
evident from the use of a deadly weapon and the targeting of vital parts of the body.
18. Before arriving at a final analysis and conclusion, it is necessary to carefully
evaluate the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence led before
the trial court. The credibility, consistency, and reliability of the testimonies must be
Sknair
7/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
scrutinised in light of the facts presented. Particular attention must be given to
whether the witnesses were able to give a coherent and truthful account of the
events in question, and whether their testimonies were corroborated by any
documentary or physical evidence. Any contradictions, inconsistencies, or material
omissions must also be weighed in assessing the overall strength of the
prosecution's case.
19. PW1-Smt. Chhaya Vilas Meshram is the wife of the injured victim PW2-
Vilas Uttamrao Meshram. In her deposition, she stated that on 06/10/2016, between
8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., while she was cooking at home, a verbal altercation ensued
involving her husband. Upon hearing the commotion, she stepped outside and found
her husband in the yard of one Sunil Waghmare. Her husband informed her that he
had intervened as Sunil was allegedly assaulting his own mother. During this time,
the accused, Gajanan Waghmare, elder brother of Sunil, arrived at the spot armed
with a knife. The accused questioned the victim regarding his involvement and
accused him of abusing Sunil. In the course of the confrontation, the accused
stabbed the victim on both hands and on the chest. When PW1 attempted to
intervene, she was also assaulted and sustained a stab injury on her right wrist. The
victim bled profusely and collapsed at the scene. The witness stated that her
attempts to assist her husband were obstructed by the accused. Subsequently, the
witness informed her brother-in-law, PW4 Vijay Meshram, who accompanied her
and arranged for the victim to be transported to the hospital. PW1 also reported the
matter to the police the same night. She confirmed her signature on the First
Information Report, which is marked as Exhibit 28, and identified her statement
Sknair
8/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, marked as Exhibit 29. During the
investigation, her bloodstained saree was seized by the police. She also identified
the accused during the course of the trial.
In her cross-examination, the witness remained consistent and unshaken. She
denied all suggestions that the incident had not taken place in the manner alleged or
that any prior animosity with the accused had prompted a false implication. The
defence was unable to extract any material contradictions or omissions to discredit
her version. Since her testimony is natural, coherent, and corroborated by other
prosecution witnesses and medical evidence, the evidence of PW1 inspires
confidence, and this Court finds her to be a reliable and truthful witness. The
defence has failed to dent the credibility of her testimony in any meaningful
manner.
20. PW2-Vilas Uttamrao Meshram, is the injured victim in the present case. In
his deposition (Exhibit 30), he deposed that on 06/10/2016, while returning home
from Anjangaon-Bari, he heard Sunil Waghmare abusing his own mother. In an
effort to prevent further violence, the witness entered Sunil's yard to intervene.
However, this act led to a verbal confrontation wherein Sunil Waghmare also
abused the witness. Hearing the commotion, the witness's wife (PW1) came out of
their house, inquired about the matter, and both she and the witness proceeded to
return to their residence. At that moment, the accused, Gajanan Waghmare (elder
brother of Sunil), arrived at the spot armed with a knife. He accused the witness of
abusing his brother and, without provocation, stabbed the witness twice, once on the
right wrist and once on the left shoulder. When the wife attempted to intervene, the
Sknair
9/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
accused stabbed her on the right arm. The witness further stated that when he tried
to help his injured wife, the accused stabbed him again in the chest, causing him to
fall to the ground. Both sustained serious bleeding injuries. PW2 stated that his wife
immediately informed his brother, PW4 Vijay Meshram, who reached the scene and
arranged for the victim's transportation to Irwin Hospital, Amravati. Due to
financial constraints, he was subsequently shifted to the hospital of Dr. Pankaj
Bagde. The witness identified the accused in Court. He also identified the greenish
shirt (Article A), vest (Article B), and the knife (Article C) used in the offence, all
of which were recovered and duly marked during the trial. The police seized his
bloodstained clothes, and his statement was recorded during the course of the
investigation.
During cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestions that he was
intoxicated at the time of the incident or that he was the aggressor. He also denied
that the complaint was falsely lodged. The defence failed to extract any material
contradictions or omissions in his testimony. The witness categorically confirmed
that the injuries were caused by the accused using the knife (Article C), which he
recognised in Court. The version of PW2 is consistent with that of PW1 and is
further corroborated by the medical evidence on record. His testimony is direct,
cogent, and shows no indication of exaggeration.
21. PW3-Mrs. Renuka Mahadevrao Kodane, appeared as a Panch witness in the
present case and deposed as per Exhibit 33. She stated that she was called by the
police to act as a Panch for the preparation of the Panchnama at the incident site
located at Khirsana Jhoppadpatti. Although PW3 did not receive any prior police
Sknair
10/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
notice regarding the incident, she accompanied the police to the spot and observed
the presence of blood stains at the scene. However, the witness could not recall the
exact date of the visit nor the specific items seized by the police at that time. PW3
admitted that she did not read the Panchnama document before affixing her
signature, but recognised her signature on the said document, which is marked as
Exhibit 34. As the witness turned hotile, the learned APP sought permission to
cross-examine the witness. During cross-examination, she candidly stated that
signing such documents without reading them is a routine practice in her
professional capacity as a Panch witness. She also recognised her signature on the
police notice dated 07/10/2016, marked as Exhibit 35, which bears Article D. The
witness confirmed that she followed the instructions of the police and accompanied
them to the location for preparation of the Panchnama. She described the layout of
the incident site and noted the presence of blood stains thereon. She further testified
that the complainant had identified the scene for the police. The witness refuted any
allegations of providing false testimony and stated that she had not read the
Panchnama or police notices before signing. Notwithstanding minor lapses in
recollection regarding dates and seized items, PW3's testimony is consistent with
the procedural requirements of site inspection and Panchnama preparation.
22. PW4-Vijay Uttamraj Meshram, deposed as per Exhibit 44, stated that on the
evening of 06/10/2016, he was informed by Chhaya Vilas Meshram, the wife of the
victim, that the accused had stabbed her husband. Thereupon, PW4, accompanied
by Pravin Tapre and Arvind Ugale, proceeded to the incident site by auto-rickshaw.
Upon arrival, they observed the accused holding a weapon and found the victim,
Sknair
11/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
Vilas Uttamrao Meshram, bleeding profusely from a chest wound, lying on the
ground. PW4 further stated that they transported the injured victim to Irwin
Hospital, Amravati, and subsequently to Dr. Pankaj Bagde's hospital for further
treatment as advised by the medical professionals. The witness identified the
accused in court and confirmed that they resided in the same village. Although PW4
did not personally witness the assault, he affirmed the account of the victim's wife,
PW1, and his presence at the hospital corroborates the gravity of the victim's
injuries. He denied making any false statements or being influenced by the victim's
wife in providing his testimony. The statement of PW4 was recorded by the police
during the course of the investigation and marked as evidence. The deposition of
PW4 remains unshaken in the trial and is materially consistent with the testimonies
of PW1 and PW2. Accordingly, the Court finds the testimony of PW4 to be credible
and reliable, serving as corroborative evidence to the prosecution's case regarding
the occurrence of the assault and the subsequent medical emergency faced by the
victim.
23. PW5, Dr Amit Gajananrao Kshar, Medical Officer at Irwin Hospital,
Amravati, deposed as per Exhibit 47. He examined the victim, Vilas Uttamrao
Meshram, who was brought by police from P.S. Loni on the date of the incident.
Upon examination, PW5 recorded the following injuries :
(i) a stab injury measuring 3 cm on the left side of the chest, deep and associated
with air leakage,
(ii) an incised wound on the left arm measuring 3 cm by 2 cm, and
(iii) an incised wound on the right palm measuring 2 cm by 1 cm.
Sknair
12/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
All injuries were fresh and consistent with being inflicted by a sharp object.
The medical requisition and related documents were marked as Exhibit 48. PW5
further stated that on police requisition, he examined the victim and opined that the
victim was not medically fit to provide a statement on that day, which opinion was
endorsed and marked as Exhibit 49. He also verified his entries in the police
information book, marked Exhibit 50. Subsequently, on 30/10/2017, PW5 received
the suspected weapon, a 28.5 cm iron knife, marked as Article-C for examination.
He confirmed that the injuries sustained by the victim were consistent and could
have been caused by the said knife. The weapon query report prepared by him was
marked as Exhibit 51.
During cross-examination, PW5 denied that the injuries could have been
caused by a fall or any other accidental cause, affirming that the wounds were
compatible with sharp force trauma inflicted by the knife. His testimony and
findings were uncontroverted and remained intact during the trial. The Court finds
PW5's evidence to be credible, medically sound, and corroborative of the
prosecution's case. The medical evidence aligns consistently with the injuries
described by the eyewitnesses and the circumstances of the assault. Hence, the
deposition of PW5 is accepted and given due weight in the adjudication of the
matter.
24. PW6, Rajesh Sarvraj Pillay, deposed that on 08/10/2016 at approximately
11:00 a.m., while serving as Patwari at Loni, he was called to Loni Police Station in
connection with the present case. In his presence, the accused, Gajanan Waghmare,
gave a confession statement admitting knowledge of the location where the clothes
Sknair
13/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
and the knife used in the incident were concealed. The confession was recorded by
the police and signed by the witness, marked as Exhibit 53. Accompanied by the
second Panch, Vijaysingh Bais, police officials, and the accused, PW6 proceeded to
a farm owned by Manoj Prabhakar Bhende near Khirsana village. There, the
accused retrieved a bag and a shirt hidden beneath a palm tree. A Panchnama of the
seizure was prepared on the spot, signed by PW6 and others, and marked as Exhibit
54. In Court, PW6 identified the seized articles as a bag (Article-C) and a white-red-
black checked shirt (Article-E) and positively identified the accused. During cross-
examination, PW6 denied any falsehood in his testimony, confirmed the occurrence
of the confession and subsequent seizure, but admitted to not reading the documents
before signing them. The Court notes that PW6's testimony is consistent with other
evidence on record and remains unshaken. The confession, recovery, and seizure of
relevant articles are duly corroborated by this witness, lending credibility to the
prosecution's case. Accordingly, the deposition of PW6 is accepted as reliable and is
accorded due weight in the adjudication of the matter.
25. PW7 deposed that he was summoned by the police to Loni Police Station,
where a saree was seized in his presence. Although he could not recall the precise
date of the seizure, he affirmed that he would be able to identify the saree if shown
to him. The government counsel informed the witness that the saree had not been
produced before the court. The seizure slip prepared at the time of seizure, bearing
the signature of the witness, was verified by him and is marked as Exhibit 58.
Further, the police seized the blood sample of the accused in the presence of the
witness. The seizure slip about this sample, also bearing his signature, is marked as
Sknair
14/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
Exhibit 59. Another blood sample was seized in his presence. The seizure slip for
this sample, signed by the witness, is marked as Exhibit 60. The learned APP sought
permission to cross-examine the witness as he was unable to identify the person
from whom the sample was drawn. In cross-examination, the witness confirmed that
the blood sample of the injured, Vilas Uttamrao Meshram, was seized in his
presence. After reading the seizure form, he signed it, and it is marked as Exhibit
61. Additionally, on 25/11/2016, the police seized the blood sample of Mrs. Chhaya
Vilas Meshram in his presence. The seizure form bearing his signature in this regard
is marked as Exhibit 62.
During cross-examination, the witness denied the defence's suggestions that
his signatures had been taken on blank papers, that blood samples were not seized in
his presence, or that his testimony was untruthful. The trial Court record reflects
that the evidence of PW7 has not been considered or discussed in detail. Given the
importance of the witness as a Panch and the documentation presented, the absence
of an evaluative discourse on his testimony renders the trial Court's approach to
PW7 inconclusive.
26. PW8 - Dr. Rahul Kishor Hantodka (Exh 70) was serving as a Consultant
Surgeon at City Multi-Speciality Hospital, Amravati, in the year 2016. He deposed
that on 07.10.2016, one Vilas Uttamrao Meshram was admitted to the hospital with
a stab injury. The hospital owner, Dr. Pankaj Bagade, informed the police about the
incident, and the police intimation memo, duly signed by him, was exhibited as
Exh.71. Dr. Hantodka examined the patient and issued a Medico-Legal Certificate,
describing the following injuries: A lacerated wound measuring 4 cm x 3 cm,
Sknair
15/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
piercing the left pleura cavity, exposing muscles, bones, and pleura at the 2 nd and 3rd
costochondral junction, with continuous air flushing and active bleeding; A
traumatic swelling with a deep lacerated wound (1 cm x 0.5 cm) on the right hand;
smaller lacerations near the left subcostal margin and shoulder. He opined that the
injuries were grievous and dangerous in nature. The Medico-Legal Certificate, dated
24.12.2016, was identified and marked as Exh. 72.
During cross-examination, the witness admitted that the patient had initially
received treatment at another hospital before admission but denied the suggestion
that he issued Exh. 72 without personally examining the patient or that the
certificate was based on another doctor's report. The credibility of his deposition
remained intact and was corroborated by the medical documents on record. His
testimony was not effectively challenged during cross-examination.
27. PW9 - Dr. Raju Tukaramji Banarse (Exh 73) was serving as a Medical
Officer at the Primary Health Centre, Loni (Takli), in the year 2016. He deposed
that on 07.10.2016, while on duty along with the late Dr. V.P. Satange, one Smt.
Chhaya Vilas Meshram was brought for medical examination. Dr Satange examined
his presence and issued a medical certificate (Exh 74), which was in Dr. Satange's
handwriting and bore his signature. The certificate recorded a lacerated wound on
the right elbow joint measuring 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm, estimated to be about four
hours old, likely caused by a sharp object, and expected to heal in 5-6 days.
In cross-examination, PW9 denied the suggestions that neither he nor Dr.
Satange were present during the examination, or that the certificate (Exh 74) was
Sknair
16/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
not issued in their presence. He also denied any lack of knowledge regarding the
basis of issuance of the said certificate. His deposition remained consistent and was
corroborated by the contemporaneous medical record, thus not shaken in cross-
examination. Accordingly, the medical evidence of PW8 and PW9 supports the
prosecution's case and inspires confidence. Their testimonies, being corroborated by
documentary evidence, stand unimpeached during cross-examination.
28. PW-10 - Vishal Murlidhar Khalse (Exh 78) was serving as a Hawaldar at
Police Station, Loni, in the year 2016. He deposed that on 06.10.2016, between 8:30
p.m. and 9:00 p.m., an incident occurred, for which information was received at the
police station around 9:30 p.m. A formal First Information Report was registered at
3:36 a.m. on 07.10.2016, on the basis of a report lodged by Smt. Chhaya Vilas
Meshram. On the same day, PW-10 issued notices (Exhibit-79) to Smt. Renuka
Mahadev Kahane and Shri Sachin Govindrao Gomase to act as panch witnesses and
thereafter prepared the spot panchnama (Exhibit-80). The accused was arrested, and
the arrest form was prepared. He also seized plain soil and blood-stained soil from
the scene of the offence (Exhibit-82). On 08.10.2016, the clothes of the injured
victim, Vilas Meshram, were seized (Exhibit-83). Pursuant to a voluntary disclosure
statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
(Exh.53), a knife and clothes were recovered from Januna village, which were
seized and documented under a recovery panchnama (Exh.54). Additionally, the
following items were seized during the course of investigation: Blood samples of
the accused (Exh.-59); Saree of the complainant (Exh-58); Blood sample of injured
Vilas (Exh.-61); Blood sample of the complainant (Exh.-62). On 02.11.2016, the
Sknair
17/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
seized articles were forwarded to the Chemical Investigation Office (CIE),
Amravati, along with the relevant forwarding documents (Exh.-84, Exh-85, Exh-
86). On 21.10.2016, a communication (Exh-87) was addressed to the Judicial
Magistrate requesting that the statements of certain witnesses be recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon completion of the
investigation, a charge sheet was duly filed before the competent court. The accused
was present in court during the deposition. During cross-examination, PW-10
categorically denied all suggestions put forth by the defence that the panchnamas or
seizures were fabricated or manipulated. His deposition remains unshaken and
stands corroborated by contemporaneous documentary evidence on record. The
credibility of the investigation, as deposed by PW-10, is duly supported by the chain
of custody, recovery proceedings, and procedural compliance.
29. In a case involving charges of attempt to murder and voluntarily causing hurt
with a dangerous weapon, the burden lies squarely on the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily through credible
eyewitnesses, medical and forensic evidence, and a lawful investigation process. In
the present case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses, each of whom plays a
significant role in building a consistent and reliable narrative. One of the grounds of
this appeal is that the learned trial court has erred as it has convicted the accused
based on the testimony of PW1 and PW2 injuries. The legal consensus, as reflected
in multiple judgments, indicates that the testimony of a single injured witness can
be sufficient for conviction if it is credible, trustworthy, and corroborated by other
evidence. The testimony of an injured witness is given particular weight because
Sknair
18/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
such a witness is less likely to falsely implicate an accused, especially if the
testimony is consistent and supported by medical or other evidence. In the case of
Mano Dutt v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79, the Honourable Supreme Court
observed the stand in the position of law in paras 30 & 31 of the judgment. The
relevant para is reproduced-
"30 ...Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility
because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion
for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to
involve anybody falsely and in the bargain protect the real culprit. We
need not discuss more elaborately the weightage that should be
attached by the Court to the testimony of an injured witness. In fact,
this aspect of criminal jurisprudence is no more res integra, as has
been consistently stated by this Court in uniform language."
30. The law was also clarified in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC
259 where the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:
"28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a
witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has
been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the
occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of
such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a
witness who comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the
scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in
order to falsely implicate someone. 'Convincing evidence is required
to discredit an injured witness...."
30. ...The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the
testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law.
This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an
inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and
because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go
unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the
commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness
should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of
his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies
therein."
Sknair
19/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
31. Therefore, the contention of the defence that the conviction was based on the
testimony of the injured witness is dismissed. As mere injury is not sufficient to
discard the testimony of the witness, especially if the corroborative evidence,
coupled with the testimony of the witness, is present. The most crucial witnesses are
PW1, Smt. Chhaya Vilas Meshram and PW2, Vilas Uttamrao Meshram, are the
injured eyewitnesses. PW1, the wife of the injured victim, deposed that on
06/10/2016, between 8:00 and 8:30 PM, a verbal altercation escalated when the
accused, Gajanan Waghmare, armed with a knife, stabbed her husband on his hands
and chest and also injured her on the wrist. Her evidence is vivid, detailed, and
withstands cross-examination without material contradictions. Her FIR (Exh. 28)
and statement under Section 164 CrPC (Exh. 29) are consistent with her deposition
in court, lending high credibility to her testimony. PW2, the injured victim,
independently corroborates his wife's version. He not only described the sequence
of events leading to the assault but also identified the accused and the weapon used
(Article-C). He sustained multiple stab injuries on his chest, wrist, and shoulder, and
his clothes were seized during the investigation. His injuries were medically
confirmed and consistent with his version of the incident. The consistency between
the two primary witnesses on material facts such as time, location, motive, the
assailant's identity, and the nature of the assault strongly supports the prosecution's
version.
32. The corroborative statement of PW4, Vijay Uttamrao Meshram, the brother
of the injured victim, testified to having been informed by PW1 immediately after
the assault and reaching the scene to find his brother grievously injured. He further
Sknair
20/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
corroborated the hospitalisation of the victim and identified the accused as being
present at the scene, holding a weapon. Although he is not an eyewitness to the
assault itself, his testimony lends credibility to the chain of events. It was argued
that the learned trial court had committed an error as it had convicted the accused on
the testimony of a related witness. However, it is also well settled principle of law
that the creditworthiness of a related witness cannot be disregarded. The said
principle was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ashok
Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2008) 12 SCC 173 in para 8, which is
reproduced below-
"8. Insofar as the question of creditworthiness of the evidence of
relatives of the victim is concerned, it is well settled that though the
court has to scrutinise such evidence with greater care and caution
but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of their
interest in the prosecution. The relationship, per se, does not affect the
credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a
relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterised as
an "interested" witness. It is trite that the term "interested"
postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect
interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted,
either because he had some animus with the accused or for some
other oblique motive."
Hence, the testimony of the PW4 cannot be discredited merely because he is
the brother of the complainant. It remained unshattered during the cross-
examination. PW4 denied making false statements or being influenced by Vilas,
affirming Chhaya's account and his presence at the hospital. The defence has failed
to find a dent in the testimony. Further, his testimony is corroborated by other
evidence. Hence, this court does not see any reason why the said witness should be
disregarded merely because he is an "interested" witness.
Sknair
21/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
Another question raised by the defence counsel is regarding the examination
of an independent witness. The position of law is very clear in this regard: whenever
an incident happens and there is a failure to examine the independent witness and
conviction based on the testimony of the injured witness, it is held to be correct in
law. This is because most of the public is hesitant to testify in court. In Ashok
Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (Supra), the Honourable Supreme Court in
para 7 clearly observed as under-
"7. We are not impressed with the argument. Though it is true that
the incident having taken place near the market around 6 p.m. on 17-
7-1988, the prosecution should have attempted to secure public
witnesses who had witnessed the incident, but at the same time one
cannot lose sight of the ground realities that the members of the public
are generally insensitive and reluctant to come forward to report and
depose about the crime even though it is committed in their presence.
In our opinion, even otherwise it will be erroneous to lay down as a
rule of universal application that non-examination of a public witness
by itself gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution or
that the testimony of a relative of the victim, which is otherwise
creditworthy, cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by public
witnesses."
PW6 and PW7, Panch witnesses, testified regarding the seizure of the blood-stained
saree, blood samples, and recovery of the weapon and clothes based on the
accused's confession under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. These recoveries,
which include Article-C (knife) and Article-E (shirt), were conducted in their
presence and duly documented under Exhibits 53 and 54. Their testimonies were
not discredited during cross-examination, and while PW7's evidence was not
elaborately discussed in the trial Court, it remains unshaken and supports the
forensic linkage between the crime and the accused. PW3 only remembered the
signature on the panchanama.
Sknair
22/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
33. The prosecution has produced three medical witnesses, each of whom
provides critical corroboration. PW5, Dr Amit Kshar, conducted the initial medical
examination of the victim at Irwin Hospital and noted multiple fresh, sharp weapon
injuries on vital parts of the body, including a chest wound that led to air leakage, a
sign of lung puncture. He further examined the weapon (Article-C) and opined that
the injuries were consistent with it. PW8, Dr Rahul Kishor Hantodka, described the
injuries as grievous and life-threatening, with specific reference to the depth of the
chest wound penetrating the pleural cavity, continuous bleeding, and exposed bones
and muscles. He categorically denied that such injuries could occur from a fall.
PW9, Dr Raju Banarse, confirmed the examination and injury report of PW1 (Smt.
Chhaya), who also suffered a laceration caused by a sharp object, consistent with
her testimony. The medical evidence unambiguously confirms the nature, extent,
and cause of the injuries and fully supports the depositions of PW1 and PW2.
The Honourable Supreme Court has time and again clarified nature of injury
would not absolve the accused from his conviction under section 307 IPC. In the
case of S.K. Khaja v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715, the
Honourable Apex Court expressly observed in para 8 as follows-
"8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent - State, merely because the injuries sustained by the
complainant - Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) were very simple in
nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being
convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is
important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the
appellant/accused...".
As observed above, the nature and the extent of injury caused are such that it was
life-threatening and enough to bring home the guilt of the accused.
Sknair
23/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
34. PW10, the Investigating Officer, narrated the steps taken during the course of
the investigation from registration of FIR, collection of blood-stained clothes and
soil, recovery of the weapon and clothes worn by the accused, collection of blood
samples, and filing of the charge sheet. The sequence of events and documentation
(Exhs. 53, 54, 58, 59, 61, and 62) have not been discredited in cross-examination.
His procedural compliance strengthens the evidentiary value of the recoveries.
35. Each material prosecution witness remained steadfast during cross-
examination. There is no evidence of previous enmity that could have motivated
false implication. The depositions of the injured witnesses are natural and credible,
supported by prompt FIR lodging, forensic recoveries, consistent medical records,
and corroborative testimonies from family members, Panch witnesses, and medical
professionals. No significant omissions or contradictions were elicited during the
trial to discredit the prosecution's case. The defence has not led any substantive
evidence to rebut the prosecution's claims, nor has it provided any plausible
alternative explanation for the injuries suffered or the presence of blood at the
scene.
36. The accused has qualified the Equivocality test for attempt. The said
testimony and the evidence point out the unequivocal intention of the accused to
commit murder. It is merely by chance that the accused has failed in his
commission.
37. This Court has carefully perused the entire record of the case, including the
depositions of all prosecution witnesses, medical reports, documentary evidence,
Sknair
24/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
and the findings of the learned trial court. Upon thorough consideration, it is evident
that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused, Gajanan
Waghmare, beyond a reasonable doubt.
38. The testimonies of PW1, the injured eyewitness and complainant, and PW2,
the injured victim, are direct, consistent, and reliable. Their version of events is
fully corroborated by medical evidence furnished by PW5, PW8, and PW9. The
sequence of events, as narrated by these witnesses, is not only coherent but also
supported by independent witnesses such as PW4 and the Panch witnesses. No
material contradiction or omission could be elicited during cross-examination of
any of the material witnesses.
39. The recovery of the knife and bloodstained clothes at the instance of the
accused, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been duly proved through
the testimony of PW6 and the Investigating Officer, PW10. The seized articles were
identified in court and found to be consistent with the injuries inflicted. The
procedural compliance in the conduct of spot panchnamas, recovery, seizure, and
forwarding of forensic samples is evident from the record.
40. The defence failed to rebut the prosecution's case. No plausible explanation
was offered for the presence of bloodstains at the scene, or for the recovery of the
weapon from the place indicated by the accused. The suggestions put to the
witnesses during cross-examination were vague, unsubstantiated, and did not shake
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Further, no evidence of prior enmity or
motive for false implication was brought on record.
Sknair
25/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
41. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused, Gajanan
Waghmare, assaulted the victim, Vilas Uttamrao Meshram, with a sharp-edged
weapon, causing him grievous injuries, including a life-threatening stab wound to
the chest. The act was committed intentionally and without provocation. The
accused further caused hurt to Smt. Chhaya Vilas Meshram (PW1), when she
attempted to intervene. The medical evidence corroborates the nature and gravity of
the injuries. The intent and knowledge of the accused are evident from the
circumstances, particularly the fact that he arrived at the scene armed with a knife.
42. Lastly, on the sentencing, this court is of the view that the conviction
imposed by the learned trial court is correct and does not need any changes on the
count of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. In cases, especially under
Section 307 of the IPC, the nature of the injury, the use of a weapon, and the
intention of the accused primarily determine the sentence. The 3-Judge Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in special reference to the sentencing observed in para 17
of the case Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516-
"17. We reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, the law
should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on a
factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the
nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and
committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the
accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending
circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of
consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose an
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of the law. It is the
duty of every court to award a proper sentence having regard to the
nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or
committed. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the
victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the
imposition of appropriate punishment".
Sknair
26/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
The case cited by the defence counsel is not relevant to the present circumstance, as
the evidence, injury caused to the victim and complainant, is enough to prove the
guilt of the accused. Following the precedent of the Supreme Court, this court is
unable to give undue sympathy to the accused. Further, the accused's senior age
cannot be the sole ground for a reduction of sentence, especially when strong
evidence and witnesses are pointing out the guilt of the accused. The criminal law
always strikes a balance between the rights of the accused, rights of the victims and
society's interest.
43. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the conviction recorded
by the learned Sessions Court. The conviction of the accused under Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder and under Section 324 of
the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon is
upheld. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307 IPC,
and 1 year under Section 324 IPC, as imposed by the trial court, is found to be
proportionate to the gravity of the offence and is therefore confirmed.
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed. The sentences shall run concurrently. The
appellant shall be entitled to set-off for the period already undergone in custody
under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. All fines and conditions
imposed by the trial court are also upheld.
Sknair
27/27 apeal-353-23(j).odt
A certified copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for
compliance and for ensuring that the remainder of the sentence is carried out in
accordance with law.
[NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.]
Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR
Designation: PS To Honourable
Sknair Judge
Date: 15/10/2025 16:05:39
