Pandurang S/O Govinda Chute vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3651 Bom

Bombay High Court

Pandurang S/O Govinda Chute vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 10 April, 2026

Author: Anil L. Pansare

Bench: Anil L. Pansare

2026:BHC-NAG:5706-DB


                                                1                                apeal 341-20.odt




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


                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2020


                Pandurang s/o Govinda Chute,
                Aged about 55 years, Occ. - Labourer,
                R/o Khunari, Tahsil Lakhani,
                District Bhandara.                                    ....     APPELLANT

                             VERSUS

                The State of Maharashtra,
                through Police Station Officer Palandur,
                Tahsil Lakhani, District Bhandara.                    ....    RESPONDENT

                ____________________________________________________________________

                               Mr. Ritesh Badhe, Counsel for the appellant,
                            Mr. A.B. Badar, Addl.P.P. for the respondent/State.
                ____________________________________________________________________


                         CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

                DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT   : 02-04-2026
                DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 10-04-2026


                JUDGMENT :

(PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)

The present appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Order

dated 20.06.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara

in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2016, whereby the appellant-original accused No.

1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to 2 apeal 341-20.odt

suffer simple imprisonment for two months. By the said judgment, accused

No. 2 came to be acquitted of the charges levelled against her.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant and accused No. 2

are husband and wife and were residing in the vicinity of the deceased

Pandhari Chute at village Khunari, Tahsil Lakhani, District Bhandara. On 02-

09-2016 at about 8:30 a.m., a quarrel ensued between the deceased and

accused No. 2 on account of throwing of laundry water. It is alleged that,

following the said quarrel, accused No. 2 informed the appellant, whereupon

the appellant brought a wooden stick and assaulted the deceased on his head.

As a result of the said assault, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed on the spot. The incident was reported by the informant-PW 1, on

the basis of which, Crime No. 23 of 2016 came to be registered at Police

Station, Palandur for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the IPC.

3. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer visited the

spot of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased lying on the

road in a pool of blood. He prepared the spot panchnama and inquest

panchnama, and collected blood-mixed soil, plain soil and other material

from the scene of offence. The dead body was sent for post-mortem

examination. The clothes of the deceased and other articles were seized. The

appellant came to be arrested and his clothes, which were found stained with

blood, were seized. The Investigating Officer further deposed that while in 3 apeal 341-20.odt

custody, the appellant expressed willingness to discover the weapon used in

the commission of the offence and, pursuant thereto, led the police and

panch witnesses to a spot from where a wooden stick stained with blood was

recovered. The said articles, including the weapon and blood samples of the

appellant and the deceased, were forwarded for chemical analysis and DNA

examination.

4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed

against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302

read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions at Bhandara. The

learned trial Court framed Charge (Exh.30) against the appellant, to which

they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has

examined nine witnesses.

5. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the death of the

deceased was homicidal and that it was the appellant who assaulted the

deceased by means of a wooden stick. The learned trial Court found the

testimony of PW 2 and PW 3 to be credible and duly corroborated by

medical, recovery and forensic evidence. While acquitting accused No. 2 for

want of sufficient evidence, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution

had proved the guilt of the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt,

thereby convicting the present appellant for the offence punishable under 4 apeal 341-20.odt

Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

Hence, the present appeal.

6. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Badhe for the appellant and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Badar for the respondent/State.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned

conviction is legally unsustainable and suffers from serious infirmities. It is

contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge beyond

reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution rests primarily on the

testimony of PW 2 and PW 3, who are closely related to the deceased and

belong to a rival group, and therefore constitute interested witnesses whose

evidence warrants cautious scrutiny. It is urged that their testimonies are not

only partisan but also suffer from material omissions and inconsistencies,

rendering their presence at the spot doubtful.

Learned Counsel further submits that the alleged motive, arising out of

a trivial dispute, remains unsubstantiated by independent evidence. It is

further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have failed to establish a

clear and precise timeline of the incident or the lodging of the FIR. This

omission creates serious doubt regarding the sequence of events and casts

suspicion on the timing of the report. It is urged that the absence of a definite

timeline materially affects the credibility of the prosecution case. It is also

contended that the prosecution has failed to examine independent and

natural witnesses residing in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, thereby 5 apeal 341-20.odt

inviting an adverse inference. It is also argued that the medical evidence does

not support the ocular version and that the recovery of the alleged weapon is

doubtful, as it was discovered from an open place after delay without

adherence to mandatory safeguards and in absence of reliable panch

witnesses. On these grounds, it is contended that the prosecution has failed

to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to

acquittal.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the

impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt

of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the evidence

of PW 2 and PW 3, who are natural witnesses to the incident, is consistent

and duly corroborated by medical evidence. It is further submitted that

merely because the witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence

cannot be discarded when it is otherwise reliable. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor further submits that the recovery of the blood-stained weapon and

the presence of blood of the deceased on the clothes of the appellant, as

established by the DNA report, form strong incriminating circumstances

against the appellant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that

during cross-examination of the material prosecution witnesses, the defence

failed to bring on record the exact timing of the incident and, therefore, the

contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant does not hold any merit.

It is further submitted that the FIR reflects prompt registration and the

evidence on record clearly establishes a consistent sequence of events. Hence, 6 apeal 341-20.odt

the absence of minor details relating to time does not affect the credibility of

the prosecution case. It was further argued that the alleged omissions,

contradictions, and defects in investigation are minor and do not go to the

root of the matter. Enmity between the parties provides motive rather than a

ground for false implication. It is thus submitted that no interference is

warranted in the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court and the

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. In light of the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, the

following points arise for determination:

 Sr.No.                         Points                            Finding

     (i)      Whether the prosecution has proved             In the affirmative.
              that the death of Pandhari Chute was
              homicidal?
     (ii)     Whether the prosecution has proved             In the affirmative.
              that the appellant caused the death of
              Pandhari Chute?
     (iii)    Whether interference is called for?             In the negative.
     (iv)     What order?                                    As per Final order.


                                     REASONING

As to Point (i) :

10. Insofar as Point No. (i) is concerned, the prosecution has conclusively

established that the death of Pandhari Chute was homicidal in nature. The

evidence of PW 4-Dr. Kiran Anand Kanire, who conducted the post-mortem

examination, reveals that the deceased had sustained multiple ante-mortem 7 apeal 341-20.odt

injuries on vital parts of the body, particularly on the head. Upon examination

of the dead body, he found the following injuries-

i) Contuse lacerated wound temporo parietal region at right side measuring 5 x 2 x 1 cm.

ii) Contuse lacerated wound parato temporal region at left side 4 x 1 x 1 cm.

iii) Contuse lacerated wound occipital region measuring about 3 x 1 x 1 cm.

iv) Depress facture left frontal parietal and occipital bone.

      v)      Nesul bleed plus left ear bleed present.
      vi)     Himatoma plus lacerations over frontal parietal and occipital
              region.

11. The post-mortem reveals contused lacerated wounds over the

temporo-parietal and occipital regions, coupled with a depressed fracture of

the frontal, parietal and occipital bones. The Medical Officer has categorically

opined that the cause of death was "head injury due to assault." The nature,

number and location of the injuries clearly indicate that they were not

accidental but were the result of forceful blows by a hard and blunt object.

The inquest panchnama and the spot panchanama further show that the

deceased was found lying on the road in a pool of blood with bleeding from

the ear and nose, which is consistent with severe head trauma.

12. It is significant to note that even the defence, in the course of cross-

examination, has suggested that the deceased was assaulted by some person,

thereby implicitly admitting the homicidal nature of death. No material has

been brought on record to suggest any possibility of accidental or suicidal

death. In the absence of any such alternative hypothesis, and in view of the 8 apeal 341-20.odt

clear and consistent medical evidence, this Court has no hesitation in holding

that the death of Pandhari Chute was homicidal. Accordingly, Point No. (i) is

answered in the affirmative.

As to Point Nos. (ii) & (iii) :

13. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the ocular testimonies of

PW 2-Ratiram Chute and PW 3-Anusaya Bhendarkar, who are claimed to be

eyewitnesses to the incident. PW 2 has deposed that on the date of incident

at about 8:30 a.m., he was sitting in the front portion of his house when he

noticed the deceased proceeding on the road towards a grocery shop. He has

further stated that the appellant came to his house, whereupon accused No. 2

informed him that the deceased had abused her. Immediately thereafter, the

appellant brought a wooden stick from his house and went in the direction of

the deceased. The witness has categorically stated that upon hearing the

sound of a blow, he came out and saw the deceased lying on the road and the

appellant giving a stick blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which

blood started oozing from the head. He has also identified the wooden stick

(Article-A) as the weapon used in the assault. His presence at the spot is

natural, as the incident occurred in front of his house in broad daylight. His

conduct in approaching the injured and attempting to revive him by

sprinkling water lends assurance to his presence and version. Nothing

material has been elicited in his cross-examination so as to discredit his

testimony on the core aspect of the assault.

9 apeal 341-20.odt

14. PW 3 also supports the prosecution case. She has deposed that at the

relevant time she was in her house and upon hearing a sound, she looked out

from the window of her house and saw that the deceased was lying on the

ground and the appellant was delivering blows with a stick on his head.

Though she has stated that she could not identify the stick, her testimony

clearly establishes that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased.

It has come in her cross-examination that her house is situated at a

distance of about 40 feet from the road. However, there is no material to

show that the view from her house was obstructed or that it was not possible

to witness the occurrence. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the

place of incident was visible from her house. Her testimony, therefore, does

not appear to be improbable. When read as a whole, it lends corroboration to

the version of PW 2 regarding the identity of the assailant and the manner of

assault, thereby making her presence and ability to witness the occurrence

quite natural.

15. The learned Counsel for the appellant has sought to discredit these

witnesses on the ground that they are related to the deceased and belong to a

rival group. However, the mere fact that a witness is related to the deceased

is not a ground to discard his or her testimony. It is well settled that the

evidence of a related or interested witness cannot be discarded merely on

that ground, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has observed the same in Baban Shankar Daphal vs. State of 10 apeal 341-20.odt

Maharashtra 2025 SCC Online SC 137. The relevant paragraph Nos. 27, 29

and 29 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:

"27. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the eyewitnesses to the incident were all closely related to the deceased and for prudence the prosecution ought to have examined some other independent eyewitness as well who were present at the time of the unfortunate incident. This was also the view taken by the Trial Court, but the High Court has correctly rejected such an approach and held that merely because there were some more independent witnesses also, who had reached the place of incident, the evidence of the relatives cannot be disbelieved. The law nowhere states that the evidence of the interested witness should be discarded altogether. The law only warrants that their evidence should be scrutinized with care and caution. It has been held by this Court in the catena of judgments that merely if a witness is a relative, their testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone.

28. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy.

29. The distinction between "interested" and "related"

witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab 1954 SCR 145, where this Court emphasized that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency 11 apeal 341-20.odt

with other evidence in the case. This position has been reiterated by this Court in:

i. Md. Rojali Ali v. The State of Assam, Ministry of Home Affairs through secretary; (2019) 19 SCC 567 ii. Ganapathi v. State of T.N. (2018) 5 SCC 549 iii. Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry (2010) 1 SCC

199."

In the present case, both PW 2 and PW 3 are residents of the same

locality and their presence at the time of incident is natural and probable.

Their evidence is consistent on the material aspect that the appellant

assaulted the deceased on the head with a stick. The minor omissions and

discrepancies brought on record in their cross-examination, such as non-

mention of certain details in police statements, pertain to peripheral aspects

and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Such minor discrepancies

are but natural and, in fact, lend assurance that the witnesses are not

deposing in a tutored manner. These are normal discrepancies which are

bound to occur due to lapse of time and do not render their evidence

unreliable.

16. The ocular account is further strengthened by the medical evidence.

The injuries noted in the post-mortem report appear to be fully consistent

with blows inflicted by a hard and blunt object like a wooden stick. The

location of injuries on the head and the nature of fractures clearly support the

prosecution version that the deceased was assaulted on a vital part of the

body. PW 4, the Medical Officer, has opined that such injuries could be 12 apeal 341-20.odt

caused by the seized weapon (Article-A), thereby establishing a direct nexus

between the weapon, the injuries and the cause of death.

17. The conduct of the appellant immediately after the incident also

assumes significance. PW 1-Vaishali Chute, the informant, has deposed that

soon after the incident while returning towards the village, she saw the

appellant moving hurriedly with a wooden stick in his hand which was

stained with blood. This conduct of the appellant immediately after the

incident is a strong incriminating circumstance pointing towards his

involvement in the crime. Her version is consistent with the contents of the

First Information Report, which was lodged promptly and contains a natural

and spontaneous narration of the occurrence.

18. The prosecution has further proved the recovery of the weapon at the

instance of the appellant through the evidence of PW 9-Manoj Wadhive, the

Investigating Officer. The evidence shows that the appellant, while in custody,

expressed his willingness to discover the wooden stick used in the

commission of the offence and led the police to a place near a babhool tree,

from where the stick (Article-A) was recovered. The said stick was found to

be stained with blood.

Though it has been contended that the recovery was from an open

place, the evidence indicates that the place of recovery was not easily

accessible and the appellant had exclusive knowledge of the concealment of

the weapon. In such circumstances, the recovery cannot be discarded merely 13 apeal 341-20.odt

on the ground that the place was not in the exclusive possession of the

appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lochan Shrivas v. State

of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 15 SCC 401 has clarified that the evidentiary value of

a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not diluted merely because

the place of recovery is open or accessible, so long as the concealment was

such that it remained within the special knowledge of the accused and was

not ordinarily visible. The relevant paragraph Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of the said

judgment are reproduced as under:

"38. The said recovery on the memorandum of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has been attacked by the defence on the ground that the same is from an open place, accessible to one and all. In this respect, it is apposite to rely on the following observations of this Court in State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh: (SCC p. 378, para 26) "26. There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others". It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others, it would vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the article is buried in the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disinterred, its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence, the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others."

39. It could thus be seen that this Court in Jeet Singh case has held that what is relevant is not whether the place was 14 apeal 341-20.odt

accessible to others or not, but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If the place at which the article hidden is such where only the person hiding it knows until he discloses that fact to any other person, then it will be immaterial whether the concealed place is accessible to others.

40. It will also be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in John Pandian v. State: (SCC p. 153, para 57)

"57. It was then urged by the learned counsel that this was an open place and anybody could have planted veechu aruval. That appears to be a very remote possibility. Nobody can simply produce a veechu aruval planted under the thorny bush. The discovery appears to be credible. It has been accepted by both the courts below and we find no reason to discard it. This is apart from the fact that this weapon was sent to the forensic science laboratory (FSL) and it has been found stained with human blood. Though the blood group could not be ascertained, as the results were inconclusive, the accused had to give some explanation as to how the human blood came on this weapon. He gave none. This discovery would very positively further the prosecution case."

19. The medical evidence also lends support to the prosecution case. PW

4, the Medical Officer, has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased

could be caused by a hard and blunt object like the wooden stick (Article-A).

More importantly, the chemical analysis and DNA reports, which form part of

the record, establish that the blood found on the recovered stick as well as on

the clothes of the appellant was human blood matching with that of the

deceased. This scientific evidence provides a strong link connecting the

appellant with the crime and corroborates the ocular testimony of the

eyewitnesses.

15 apeal 341-20.odt

20. The learned Counsel for the appellant has emphasized prior enmity

and possibility of false implication. While it is true as stated by PW 1 that

there existed rivalry between two groups in the village, enmity is a double-

edged circumstance. It may provide a motive for false implication, but equally

it furnishes a motive for the commission of the offence. In the present case,

the incident appears to have arisen out of a quarrel relating to throwing of

laundry water, which escalated into violence. Therefore, in our opinion, the

existence of prior discord does not render the prosecution case doubtful,

rather crystallizes motive behind crime and thus substantiate the prosecution

version.

21. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that PW 1 has

not stated the exact time at which she saw the appellant with the stick or

when the report was lodged. It is further contended that reliance on

approximate timings as deposed by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 5 and PW 6 are

insufficient to conclusively prove the prosecution case.

It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no

such specific question or suggestion appears to have been put to prosecution

witnesses in their cross-examination on said aspect. A contention of this

nature, which is essentially factual, ought to have been put to the witnesses

at the trial so as to afford them an opportunity to explain. It would not be

appropriate to permit such a contention to be raised for the first time at the

appellate stage.

16 apeal 341-20.odt

22. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the prosecution case does

not only rest on any precise minute-to-minute account of events, but also on

a consistent and coherent narration emerging from the evidence of the

material witnesses. The broad sequence of events, namely the occurrence of

the incident in the morning hours and the subsequent reporting thereof,

stands sufficiently established from the record. The contention raised by the

learned Counsel for the appellant regarding doubts about specific timeline of

incidents do not find any support from the material on record. Such

suggestions or questions should have been dealt with at the trial stage and

not at this stage. On a reading of the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, the

sequence of events appears natural and consistent with the prosecution case.

The incident is stated to have occurred in the morning and was followed by

prompt reporting to the police. In that view of the matter, we find no

substance in the contention regarding absence of a precise timeline.

23. The contention regarding non-examination of certain independent

witnesses also does not merit acceptance. It is well settled that the

prosecution is not bound to examine each and every witness. The law places

emphasis on the quality of evidence and not on the quantity. Where the

prosecution has examined witnesses, whose presence is natural and whose

testimony is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the mere non-examination

of other witnesses does not lead to an adverse inference. Therefore, where

reliable ocular evidence is available, non-examination of other witnesses is

not fatal to the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru Dutt 17 apeal 341-20.odt

Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2021) 6 SCC 116 has observed the same

which is been reproduced as under:

"24.2. In the recent decision in Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, it is observed and held by this Court that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated.

24.3. In Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, after referring to the decision of this Court in State of H.P v. Pardeep Kumar, it is observed and held by this Court that the examination of the independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case.

25. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and when, as observed by the High Court, the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, more particularly PW 2 and PW 4 and they are found to be trustworthy and reliable, non-examination of the independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Nothing is on record that those two persons, namely, Shiv Shankar and Bhagwati Prasad as mentioned in the FIR reached the spot were mentioned as witnesses in the charge-sheet. In any case, PW 2 and PW 4 have fully supported the case of the prosecution and therefore non- examination of the aforesaid two persons shall not be fatal to the case of the prosecution."

24. As regards the alleged lapses in investigation, including delay in

recording statements and non-examination of panch witnesses, it is a settled

principle of law that defects or irregularities in investigation, by themselves,

do not vitiate the prosecution case unless they are of such nature as to affect

the core of the case or cause prejudice to the accused. The Court is required

to examine whether such lapses go to the root of the matter and render the

prosecution version doubtful.

18 apeal 341-20.odt

In the present case, the evidence of the eyewitnesses has been found

to be cogent and reliable and is duly corroborated by the medical evidence as

well as other attending circumstances. The alleged lapses in investigation do

not, in any manner, discredit the substantive evidence on record.

Consequently, such deficiencies do not create any reasonable doubt so as to

entitle the appellant to the benefit thereof.

25. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the

judgments in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, 1957 AIR (SC) 614 and

State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, 2009 Supp AIR (SC) 1535 . There can be no

dispute about the principles laid down in the said decisions.

Insofar as Vadivelu Thevar (supra) is concerned, it is regarding

classification of oral testimony and the requirement of scrutiny where

witnesses are not wholly reliable. There can be no dispute with the principles

laid down therein. However, the said judgment itself clarifies that where the

testimony of a witness is found to be wholly reliable, conviction can be safely

based thereon without insistence on corroboration. In the present case, we

find that the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 is consistent and trustworthy on

material particulars and is duly supported by medical and other evidence.

Thus, the reliance placed on the said judgment is, therefore, of no assistance

to the appellant.

26. Similarly, reliance on State of U.P. v. Hari Chand is also misplaced.

The said judgment emphasises that ocular evidence must be carefully 19 apeal 341-20.odt

evaluated before being accepted. In the present case, we have independently

scrutinised the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 and find it to be natural,

consistent and in accord with the surrounding circumstances. There is no

material to render their version improbable or unreliable.

The reliance placed on the aforesaid decisions is, therefore, of no

assistance to the appellant.

27. Upon an overall re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this

Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond

reasonable doubt. The evidence of the eyewitnesses PW 2 and PW 3 is found

to be natural and trustworthy, as well as it is duly corroborated by the

medical evidence. Recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant

and the forensic evidence supportingly link the appellant to the crime. The

submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding interested

witnesses, alleged inconsistencies, non-examination of independent witnesses

and doubtful recovery do not create any dent in the prosecution case.

28. The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, particularly

repeated blows on the head with a hard and blunt object, clearly indicate the

intention of the appellant to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to

cause death. The act of the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of

Section 300 of the IPC and is punishable under Section 302 thereof. No

material has been brought on record to show that the case falls under any of

the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.

20 apeal 341-20.odt

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence

and has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the IPC. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court do

not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference

in appeal. Accordingly Point No. (ii) is answered in the affirmative and Point

No. (iii) is answered in the negative.

30. For the aforesaid discussion, we proceed to pass the following order-

                                                                          ORDER

                                      (i)     Appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2020 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 64 of

2016 is hereby affirmed.

(iii) Bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled.

(iv) The appellant shall surrender before the Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhandara for undergoing the imprisonment within fifteen

days, failing to which the learned Additional Session Judge shall

take appropriate steps to arrest him for undergoing the sentence.

                                              (Nivedita P. Mehta, J.)                  (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
             adgokar




Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/04/2026 16:28:14