Rajkumar @ Bandu S/O Sahadeo Selokar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 375 Bom

Bombay High Court

Rajkumar @ Bandu S/O Sahadeo Selokar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 17 January, 2026

Author: Anil L. Pansare

Bench: Anil L. Pansare

2026:BHC-NAG:682-DB


                                                 1                             apeal 317.21.odt




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


                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2021


                Rajkumar @ Bandu s/o Sahadeo Selokar,
                Aged about 46 years, Occupation - Farmer,
                R/o Mandhal, Tahsil - Tumsar, District -
                Bhandara.                                           ....     APPELLANT

                             VERSUS

                The State of Maharashtra,
                through the Officer-in-charge of Police
                Station Mohadi, District Bhandara.                  ....    RESPONDENT

                ____________________________________________________________________

                          Mr. R.D. Hajare, Counsel (appointed) for the appellant,
                            Ms. R.V. Sharma, Addl.P.P. for the respondent/State.
                ____________________________________________________________________


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

                DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 6th JANUARY, 2026
                DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 17th JANUARY, 2026


                JUDGMENT :

(PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

16.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in

Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2017, whereby the appellant came to be convicted

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 450 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). The appellant was sentenced to suffer

imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, rigorous

imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, and 2 apeal 317.21.odt

rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 450 of the

IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was,

however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(3) of the

Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifices and Other

Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 (for short,

"the Black Magic Act, 2013").

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant Rajkumar @ Bandu

Selokar and the injured informant Shivshankar Selokar are real brothers,

residing in adjoining portions of a common residential house at village

Mandhal, District Bhandara. Shivshankar resided with his wife Laxmibai,

who succumbed to injuries sustained in the incident. In the night of

16.11.2016, Shivshankar and Laxmibai were sleeping on separate cots in the

chhapari of their house along with their minor grand-daughters. At about

3.00 a.m., Shivshankar woke up to use washroom and noticed the appellant

standing in the courtyard. Shortly thereafter, harbouring a suspicion that

Shivshankar had practised black magic upon his she-buffalo, the appellant

entered the chhapari armed with an axe and repeatedly assaulted

Shivshankar on his head, neck and shoulder and inflicted severe blows on

Laxmibai on her head and face. Both Shivshankar and Laxmibai fell

unconscious in a pool of blood.

3. On hearing the screams, a neighbour, who was also a relative of the

appellant and the injured, rushed to the spot. He witnessed the incident and

attempted to intervene. Thereafter, the injured were immediately taken to the 3 apeal 317.21.odt

Sub-District Hospital, Tumsar, and subsequently referred to the General

Hospital, Bhandara for further treatment. During the course of treatment,

Laxmibai succumbed to the injuries, particularly head injuries, while

Shivshankar survived with grievous injuries.

4. On the basis of the statement of injured Shivshankar Selokar recorded

at the General Hospital, Bhandara, a First Information Report (Exh.65) came

to be registered as Crime No. 64 of 2016 at Police Station Mohadi for the

offences punishable under Sections 307 and 450 of the IPC and Section 3(1)

(3) of the Black Magic Act, 2013. Upon the death of Laxmibai, as reflected in

the medical memo dated 17.11.2016, the offence under Section 302 of the

IPC was added. Spot panchanama (Exh.35) was drawn at the place of

occurrence, i.e. the chhapari of Shivshankar's house, and blood-stained

articles including bed-sheets, pillows and broken bangles were seized.

Statements of witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, "CrPC") were recorded before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Mohadi.

5. The appellant was arrested on 17.11.2016. During investigation, a

memorandum statement of the appellant came to be recorded under Section

27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the presence of panch witnesses,

pursuant to which, the blood-stained axe allegedly used in the commission of

the offence was recovered from his house. The Police Head Constable seized

clothes of the deceased, along with viscera and blood samples. He also

obtained blood samples of the injured. On 22-11-2016 he forwarded the 4 apeal 317.21.odt

seized muddemal to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur for

chemical analysis.

6. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohadi, who committed the case to

the Court of Sessions, Bhandara on 03.04.2017, the offences being

exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Court framed

Charge (Exh.6) against the appellant for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 307 and 450 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(3) of the Black Magic

Act, 2013. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, including the injured

informant Shivshankar Selokar (PW-1), the panch witnesses Maheshkumar

Mankar (PW-2), Shubham Bhurle (PW-3) & Vinod Nikhade (PW4), the child

eyewitness Sanjana Selokar (PW-5), the neighbour-relative Dinesh Selokar

(PW-6), Police Patil Vijay Ahir (PW-7), the driver, who had took injured to the

hospital, Rajbahadur Chavan (PW-8), Medical Officers Ashish Chindhalore

(PW-9), Pradip Anand (PW-10) and Jyoti Kukade (PW-14), PSI Omprakash

Gedam (PW-11), Police Constable Hivraj Warkade (PW-12) and the

Investigating Officer Pradipsingh Pardeshi (PW-13). After completion of

prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of

the CrPC was recorded, wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances

and claimed false implication on account of an alleged agricultural dispute

with the injured.

5 apeal 317.21.odt

8. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record,

the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had proved that the

death of Laxmibai was homicidal. It was further held that the appellant

inflicted axe blows on the deceased with the intention and knowledge that

such acts were likely to cause her death. The learned trial Court also found

that the appellant caused grievous injuries to Shivshankar with an axe, which

were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Relying upon

the consistent testimonies of the injured eyewitness (PW-1), the child witness

(PW-5), the natural witness (PW-6), corroborative medical evidence, recovery

of the blood-stained axe, and the prompt lodging of the FIR, the learned trial

Court rejected the defence of false implication. Consequently, while

acquitting the appellant of the charge under the Black Magic Act, 2013, the

learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him under Sections 302, 307 and

450 of the IPC, as stated hereinabove.

9. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:

9.1 The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment

and order of conviction dated 16.07.2019, contending that the same is

illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. It was submitted that

the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in

its proper perspective and proceeded to convict the appellant despite serious

contradictions, infirmities and absence of legally reliable proof.

6 apeal 317.21.odt

9.2 It was argued that the entire prosecution case rests upon the testimony

of interested witnesses, and there is no independent, cogent or trustworthy

ocular evidence to support the conviction.

9.3 The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed

to establish any motive for the commission of the alleged offence. It was

contended that in a case involving serious charges under Sections 302 and

307 of the IPC, proof of motive assumes significance, particularly where the

evidence is weak or circumstantial.

9.4 It was argued that PW-1, the injured eyewitness, is not a reliable

witness. During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that due to the winter

season he had covered his face with a blanket while sleeping and that

immediately after the assault, he became unconscious. It was argued that

these admissions render the identification of the assailant doubtful and that

such a witness cannot be treated as a dependable eyewitness.

9.5 The learned Counsel submitted that PW-5 admitted in her cross-

examination that the chhapari was covered with curtains from all sides,

thereby restricting visibility. In view of this, the testimony of PW-6, who

claimed to have rushed to the spot and attempted to snatch the axe from the

appellant, was contended to be wholly improbable. It was further pointed out

that PW-6 himself admitted that he was sleeping inside his house with doors

closed and lights switched off, thereby making his presence doubtful.

7 apeal 317.21.odt

9.6 It was submitted that PW-7, the Police Patil, is a hearsay witness, as his

knowledge of the incident is based on information received after the

occurrence. His testimony, according to the appellant, does not establish the

manner of occurrence or the involvement of the appellant, and reliance

placed upon such evidence by the learned trial Court is erroneous.

9.7 The learned Counsel also relied upon the Chemical Analysis Report

(Exh.95) to contend that no blood stains were detected on the clothes

allegedly worn by the appellant at the time of the incident. It was argued that

this scientific evidence seriously dents the prosecution case and creates a

reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's involvement.

9.8 It was further contended that the incident occurred during late night

hours in darkness and no independent witness has been examined to

establish the identity of the assailant. In such circumstances, the possibility of

mistaken identity cannot be ruled out, and the appellant was entitled to the

benefit of doubt.

9.9 On the aforesaid grounds, it was submitted that the prosecution has

failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that

the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge has resulted in grave

miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court.

8 apeal 317.21.odt

10. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-State :

10.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-State supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction

dated 16.07.2019 and submitted that the same is legal, proper and based on

a correct appreciation of the evidence on record. It was contended that the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt

and that no case for interference in appeal is made out.

10.2 It was submitted that the prosecution case rests on direct ocular

evidence, and not merely on circumstantial evidence. The injured eyewitness

PW-1 Shivshankar Sahadeo Selokar has given a clear, consistent and

trustworthy account of the assault committed by the appellant. His presence

at the scene is undisputed, and his testimony is entitled to great weight in

law. The evidence of PW-1 is natural and free from embellishment and has

remained unshaken in cross-examination.

10.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence

of PW-1 is amply corroborated by PW 5 - Ku. Sanjana Ganesh Selokar, a child

eyewitness, whose presence at the spot is natural and unquestionable. It was

argued that the learned trial Court, after satisfying itself regarding her

competency, rightly relied upon her testimony. Her evidence is consistent on

material particulars, particularly with regard to the identity of the appellant,

the weapon used and the manner of assault.

9 apeal 317.21.odt

10.4 It was further submitted that the testimony of PW-6 Dinesh Jairam

Selokar provides additional corroboration to the prosecution case. PW-6 is a

natural witness, who rushed to the spot immediately after hearing shouts and

witnessed the appellant assaulting the victims.

10.5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence

of PW-7, the Police Patil, though not an eyewitness to the assault, is relevant

and admissible to prove the immediate aftermath of the incident, the

condition of the injured persons, and the prior animosity arising out of the

appellant's suspicion of black magic. His evidence lends assurance to the

prosecution version and establishes motive. It was argued that the medical

evidence fully corroborates the ocular testimony. PW-9 Dr. Ashish

Chindhalore and PW-10 Dr. Pradip Anand have proved that the injuries

sustained by Shivshankar were grievous and caused by a sharp and heavy

weapon, and that the injuries sustained by Laxmibai were sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem report

conclusively establishes that Laxmibai's death was homicidal.

10.6 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the

axe (Art-F) recovered at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act was found to be capable of causing the injuries sustained

by the victims. The recovery is duly proved through reliable panch and

Investigating Officer evidence and constitutes a strong incriminating

circumstance against the appellant. With regard to the defence contention

based on the Chemical Analysis Report, it was submitted that the absence of 10 apeal 317.21.odt

blood stains on the clothes allegedly worn by the appellant does not discredit

the prosecution case. It is settled law that when reliable ocular evidence is

available, failure to detect blood on the clothes of the appellant is not fatal,

particularly when the blood-stained weapon has been recovered and proved.

10.7 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the defence

arguments regarding darkness, curtains in the chhapari, and alleged

improbability of witnesses are artificial and speculative. The appellant is the

real brother of PW-1 and was well known to all eyewitnesses. Identification

in such circumstances is not dependent upon lighting conditions, and the

possibility of mistaken identity is completely ruled out.

10.8 It was further submitted that motive, though not a sine qua non when

there is direct evidence, is sufficiently established in the present case by the

appellant's suspicion that the injured had practised black magic affecting his

buffaloes. The evidence on record demonstrates prior animosity and provides

a plausible motive for the crime. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor

emphasized that the FIR was promptly lodged by the injured himself while

under treatment, leaving no scope for concoction. The investigation was fair,

complete and in accordance with law. Minor procedural lapses, if any, do not

affect the substratum of the prosecution case. It was finally submitted that

the nature of the assault, repeated blows with an axe on vital parts of the

body, clearly establishes the intention and knowledge required to attract

Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, and the unlawful entry into the dwelling

house during night hours attracts Section 450 of the IPC.

11 apeal 317.21.odt

10.9 In view of the consistent ocular evidence, corroborative medical and

forensic evidence, and recovery of the weapon, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions

Judge is fully justified and does not call for interference and hence, the

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

11. We have heard R.D. Hajare, learned Counsel for the appellant, and

Mrs. R.V. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State. We have gone through the impugned judgment, evidence,

documents, etc. We will refer to the same to the extent necessary to decide

following points that arise for our consideration. We have recorded our

findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

 S.N.                       Points                              Finding
 (i)       Whether it is proved by the prosecution         In the affirmative.
           that the accused committed homicidal
           death of Laxmibai?
 (ii)      Whether it is proved by the prosecution         In the affirmative.
           that the accused voluntarily caused
           grievous injuries to Shivshankar with an
           axe on the day of the alleged incident,
           sufficient in the ordinary course of
           nature to cause death?
 (iii)     Whether interference is called for in the        In the negative
           impugned judgment?
 (iv)      What order?                                     As per final order.
                                  12                             apeal 317.21.odt



REASONS :

12. Before adverting to the points for determination, we find it

appropriate to briefly refer to the evidence produced by the prosecution for

proving its case.

12.1 PW-1 Shivshankar Sahadeo Selokar (Injured Eye-witness): PW-1 is the

injured complainant and husband of the deceased. He has categorically

deposed that on 17-11-2016, at about 3.00 a.m., the appellant Rajkumar, his

real brother, assaulted him with an axe while he was sleeping in the chhapari

of his house and thereafter inflicted repeated axe blows on his wife Laxmi.

He sustained injuries on head, neck and shoulder and became unconscious.

He further deposed that about 15 days prior to the incident, the appellant

had quarrelled with and assaulted him on suspicion that PW-1 was practicing

black magic causing his she-buffaloes to yield less milk. His testimony is

supported by prompt medical treatment, seizure of his blood-stained clothes,

recording of his statement after regaining consciousness, and correct

identification of the weapon and seized articles. He remained firm in cross-

examination and denied all suggestions of false implication or alternative

cause.

12.2. PW-2 Maheshkumar Mankar (Independent Panch Witness): PW-2, a

Junior Clerk deputed by Tahasildar, proved the spot-cum-seizure panchanama

(Exh.35), arrest of the appellant (Exh.36), memorandum statement (Exh.37)

and recovery of blood-stained axe at the instance of the appellant (Exh.38).

His testimony remains unshaken in cross-examination and establishes 13 apeal 317.21.odt

compliance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. His status as a

government servant lends assurance to his credibility.

12.3. PW-3 Shubham Bhurle (Seizure Panch): PW-3 proved seizure of blood-

stained clothes of injured PW-1 vide Exh.15. He identified the seized articles

and affirmed that the panchanama was prepared in his presence, denying any

suggestion of false or mechanical signing. He corroborated the fact that PW-1

was seriously injured and admitted in hospital immediately after the incident.

12.4. PW-4 Vinod Nikhade (Panch Witness): PW-4 proved seizure of blood-

stained clothes of the deceased and the blood sample vide Exh.43. He

identified the seized saree, blouse and sweater and affirmed that the seizure

was effected in his presence, and in cross-examination, he denied all

suggestions of false implication and refuted that his signature was obtained

mechanically or without knowledge.

12.5. PW-5 Sanjana Selokar (Child Witness): PW-5, granddaughter of the

deceased, though a child witness, has clearly deposed that the appellant

assaulted both grandparents with an axe during the night of the incident. Her

presence at the spot is natural. She identified the appellant in Court and,

despite cross-examination, consistently maintained that she personally

witnessed the assault and denied any tutoring or false implication.

12.6. PW-6 Dinesh Jairam Selokar (Neighbour and Relative): PW-6

corroborates the occurrence. He deposed that on hearing shouts from the

house of PW-1 in the early hours of the morning, he rushed to the spot and 14 apeal 317.21.odt

saw the appellant assaulting PW 1 Shivshankar and deceased Laxmibai with

an axe. He attempted to intervene but was pushed by the appellant, who

thereafter fled from the spot. He found both victims lying unconscious with

bleeding injuries. His testimony further establishes the immediate aftermath

and transportation of the injured to hospital. He also proved his statement

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. His evidence is reliable and consistent.

12.7. PW-7 Vijay Ahir (Police Patil): PW-7 received immediate information

about the assault and on arrival he saw both injured lying unconscious in a

pool of blood. He corroborates the prompt reporting of the incident and prior

motive relating to suspicion of black magic. His testimony remained

unshaken in cross-examination.

12.8. PW-8 Rajbahadur Chavan (Driver): PW-8 corroborates transportation

of injured Shivshankar and deceased Laxmi to hospital, lending assurance to

the prosecution version regarding the sequence of events.

12.9. PW-9 Dr. Ashish Chindhalore (Medical Officer, Tumsar): PW-9

examined both the injured persons soon after the incident and proved

Medico Legal Certificates (Exhs.52 & 53). He opined that injuries on both

victims were grievous, caused by a sharp and hard object, and sufficient in

the ordinary course to cause death. He further opined that the injuries could

be caused by the seized axe.

15 apeal 317.21.odt

12.10. PW-10 Dr. Pradip Anand conducted post-mortem on the deceased

and proved Medico Legal Certificate (Exh.58) and injuries mentioned at

Column No. 17 of the post-mortem report. On external examination, he

found following injuries at the time of post mortem :

(i) Incised wound on left cheek of size 3 x ½ inch deep upto oral cavity;

(ii) Incised wound on left parietal region of size 3 x ½ inch with fracture skull bone;

(iii) Incised wound near left wrist joint of size 1 x ½ x ½ inch; and

During internal examination, he found :

(i) Blood clots present below scalp of parietal region,

(ii) Hematoma present over left parietal region intra-durra.

(iii) Parenchyma congested on oedematous.

After post-mortem, he opined that death of Laxmibai occurred due to head

injury and that the injuries were possible by the use of the axe recovered in

the crime.

12.11. PW-11 PSI Omprakash Gedam: PW-11 proved recording of FIR

(Exh.65), statement of injured PW-1 (Exh.14), seizure of clothes, inquest

proceedings and procedural compliance at the initial stage of investigation.

12.12. PW-12 Police Constable Hivraj Warkade: PW-12 proved forwarding

of sealed muddemal to Regional Forensic Scientific Laboratory (RFSL),

Nagpur, thereby maintaining the chain of custody.

12.13. PW-13 PI Pradipsingh Pardeshi (Investigating Officer): PW-13 proved

the entire investigation, including spot panchanama, arrest of appellant,

recovery of weapon at the instance of the appellant, seizure of clothes, 16 apeal 317.21.odt

forwarding of samples to RFSL, and filing of charge-sheet. His evidence does

not suffer from material contradictions or lapses affecting the prosecution

case.

12.14. PW-14 Dr. Jyoti Kukade: PW-14 proved collection and sealing of

blood sample of injured PW-1 and issuance of Form-B (Exh.90), ensuring

forensic linkage.

As to Point No. (i) to (iii) :

13. The testimony of PW-1, the injured eyewitness and husband of the

deceased, occupies a position of pre-eminence. It is well settled that the

evidence of an injured witness carries greater evidentiary value, as the

presence of such a witness at the scene of offence is beyond doubt and his

testimony ordinarily inspires confidence unless strong reasons exist for

rejection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh and others v. State of

Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 has observed the same as below -

"28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka this Court has held that 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, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.

29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the 17 apeal 317.21.odt

occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below."

PW-1 has given a clear, cogent and consistent account of the incident,

identifying the appellant as the assailant, describing the weapon (axe), the

manner of assault, and the injuries sustained by him and his wife. His version

that he lost consciousness after the assault and regained it in the General

Hospital is corroborated by the medical evidence and police testimony.

14. The defence suggestion of false implication on account of land dispute

or prior enmity was categorically denied by PW-1 and remains

unsubstantiated. Mere existence of a prior dispute, even if assumed, cannot

be a ground to discard otherwise trustworthy ocular testimony, particularly

when it furnishes motive for the offence. Rather it will substantiate that

motive behind crime, where probability of implication is ruled out in the

present case it has been. The testimony of PW-1 has remained unshaken in

cross-examination and finds ample corroboration from independent and

circumstantial evidence.

15. PW-5, a child witness aged about 9 years, is a natural and most

proximate eyewitness, having been present at the spot while sleeping with

the deceased and injured. The record indicates that the learned trial Court,

before recording her evidence, was satisfied as to her competency and ability

to understand and answer questions. Her testimony is consistent and free 18 apeal 317.21.odt

from material contradiction. She unequivocally identified the appellant by

name and relationship, and clearly stated that he assaulted both

grandparents with an axe. The law is well settled that the evidence of a child

witness is not to be discarded merely on the ground of age, and if found

credible and free from tutoring, it can form the basis of conviction. The

Division Bench of this Court in case of The State of Maharashtra vs Guddu

Chhotelal Rajak, Criminal Confirmation Case No. 02/2024 has held as under-

38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pramila v. State of U.P., reported in (2021) 12 SCC 550, has observed thus: -

"5. Criminal jurisprudence does not hold that the evidence of a child witness is unreliable and can be discarded. A child who is aged about 11 to 12 years certainly has reasonably developed mental faculty to see, absorb and appreciate. In a given case the evidence of a child witness alone can also form the basis for conviction. The mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness. But the courts have regularly held that where a child witness is to be considered, and more so when he is the sole witness, a heightened level of scrutiny is called for of the evidence so that the court is satisfied with regard to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence of the child witness. PW 2 was examined nearly one year after the occurrence. The Court has, therefore, to satisfy itself that all possibilities of tutoring or otherwise are ruled out and what was deposed was nothing but the truth.

6. The evidence of a child witness and the manner of its consideration has been dealt with in State of M.P. v. Ramesh [State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 493], as follows : (SCC p. 792, para 14) "14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition."

19 apeal 317.21.odt

The cross-examination fails to bring out any material contradiction,

exaggeration or tutoring. Minor omissions regarding surrounding

circumstances are natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case.

16. PW-6, whose presence at the spot is explained by the immediate

aftermath of the incident has categorically deposed that he saw the appellant

assaulting PW 1 Shivshankar and deceased Laxmibai with an axe and that the

appellant fled after pushing him. His testimony lends strong corroboration to

PW-1 and PW-5 on all material particulars, identity of the assailant, weapon

used, and place of occurrence. Minor variations regarding the layout of the

house or seasonal conditions do not affect the core of his testimony.

17. PW-7, the Police Patil of village Mandhal, is an independent and

responsible village officer, whose testimony establishes the immediacy of the

incident. He, though not an eyewitness, reached the spot immediately and

found victims lying unconscious in a pool of blood. His testimony also brings

on record the prior suspicion regarding black magic, thereby lending support

to the prosecution version regarding motive. His evidence remained intact in

cross-examination.

18. PW-8's testimony regarding transportation of injured, though limited,

supports the prosecution version as to the immediate steps taken post-

incident. The fact that his statement was not recorded earlier does not

discredit the prosecution, as non-examination or omission of a formal 20 apeal 317.21.odt

statement of a witness is not fatal when substantive evidence is otherwise

reliable.

19. The medical evidence adduced through PW-9 and PW-10 is in complete

consonance with the ocular version. The injuries sustained by PW 1 were

grievous and caused by a sharp and heavy weapon, and the injuries found on

deceased Laxmibai, particularly the incised wound with skull fracture, were

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries were

ante-mortem. The post-mortem opinion clearly establishes that the death of

Laxmibai was homicidal and caused by head injury. Both doctors have

unequivocally opined that the injuries could be caused by the seized axe (Art-

F). No material contradiction was elicited in their cross-examination so as to

discredit their opinions.

20. The recovery of the blood-stained axe at the instance of the appellant

under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stands duly proved through the

evidence of PW-2 and PW-13. The recovery was made pursuant to a voluntary

disclosure statement and from a place within the exclusive knowledge of the

appellant. The seizure of blood-stained clothes of the appellant, deceased and

injured, along with spot panchanama, further strengthens the chain of

circumstances.

21. The minor discrepancies pointed out regarding sealing or forwarding

of muddemal articles, particularly through PW-12, are procedural in nature

and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is settled law that such 21 apeal 317.21.odt

lapses do not vitiate the prosecution case when substantive evidence is

reliable and cogent. The FIR was lodged promptly by the injured himself

while under treatment, ruling out concoction. PW-11 and PW-13 have proved

compliance with all procedural safeguards, medical fitness, inquest, post-

mortem, seizure, forwarding to RFSL, and addition of Section 302 of the IPC

upon death of Laxmibai. The defence allegation of false investigation or

fabrication remains a bald suggestion, unsupported by any material or

circumstance.

22. It is well settled that for attracting the offence punishable under

Section 307 of the IPC, the nature or gravity of the injury actually caused is

not determinative. The crucial consideration is the intention or knowledge

with which the act is committed, which has to be gathered from the manner

of assault, the nature of weapon used, and the part of the body targeted. The

mere fact that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in

nature would not, by itself, absolve the appellant-accused from liability

under Section 307 of the IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.

Khaja v. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1183/2011 held in

para 8 as under :

"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. In the instant case, it was proved by cogent evidence that the appellant/accused had tried to assault the complainant Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) with Gupti and that too on his 22 apeal 317.21.odt

head. Though the complainant received injury on his right shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the appellant/accused would be covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. There being no infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed."

On the contrary, judicial precedents consistently hold that even a minor injury

inflicted on a vital part of the body by a deadly weapon is sufficient to infer

the requisite intention or knowledge. If such a principle applies where a

single blow results in a simple injury, it follows with greater force in cases

where the assailant delivers repeated blows with a dangerous weapon on

vital parts such as the head, chest or abdomen. Repetition of the attack,

coupled with the choice of weapon and targeting of vital regions, clearly

demonstrates a determined and deliberate attempt to cause death, thereby

squarely attracting the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC,

irrespective of the eventual medical outcome.

23. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant have been

carefully considered in the light of the evidence on record. At the outset, it

must be noted that the prosecution case rests not on circumstantial evidence

alone, but primarily on the testimony of an injured eyewitness, corroborated

by a child eyewitness, an independent natural witness, medical evidence and

recovery of the weapon. The contention that PW-1 is an unreliable witness

cannot be accepted. Merely because PW-1 stated that he was sleeping with a

blanket or that he lost consciousness after sustaining injuries does not negate

his ability to identify the assailant, particularly when the assault was sudden, 23 apeal 317.21.odt

at close quarters and committed by his own real brother, who was well

known to him.

24. The argument that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses

is equally untenable. Relationship with the victim does not, by itself, render a

witness unreliable. On the contrary, such witnesses are often the most natural

witnesses to crimes committed within the family premises. In the present

case, no material contradiction or exaggeration has been brought on record

to discredit their testimony. The submission regarding improbability of PW-6's

presence is devoid of merit. PW-6 has explained that he rushed to the spot on

hearing shouts. His evidence is corroborative in nature and supports the

prosecution version regarding the assault, the weapon and the conduct of the

appellant. Minor discrepancies regarding sleeping arrangements or lighting

conditions are natural and do not render his testimony unreliable. In view of

the foregoing discussion, the testimony is held to be reliable.

25. As regards the Chemical Analysis Report, the absence of blood stains

on the clothes allegedly worn by the appellant does not by itself demolish the

prosecution case. It is a settled law that failure to detect blood stains on the

clothes of the appellant is not fatal when there is a reliable ocular evidence

and recovery of a blood-stained weapon at the instance of the appellant. The

submission regarding darkness and possibility of mistaken identity is also

without substance. The appellant is the real brother of PW-1 and was known

to all eyewitnesses. Identification in such circumstances does not depend 24 apeal 317.21.odt

upon lighting conditions alone, and the possibility of mistaken identity stands

completely ruled out.

26. The manner of assault, targeting vital parts such as the head, and

repeated blows with an axe clearly demonstrate the intention and knowledge

necessary to attract Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. The unauthorized entry

into the dwelling house during night hours establishes the offence under

Section 450 of the IPC.

27. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the

learned Sessions Judge has correctly analyzed the prosecution evidence and

rightly rejected the defence contentions. The submissions advanced on behalf

of the appellant do not create any reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. The

prosecution has established through credible ocular testimony of injured and

child witnesses, corroborated by independent witnesses, recovery of weapon

under Section 27, and strong medical evidence, that the appellant assaulted

PW-1 and caused homicidal death of Laxmi by an axe. The evidence forms a

complete and consistent chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the

appellant.

28. On a cumulative appreciation of the evidence on record, the

prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant

unlawfully entered the dwelling house of the victims during night hours,

assaulted Shivshankar with an axe causing grievous injuries and inflicted

fatal blows on Laxmibai, resulting in her death. The nature of injuries, the 25 apeal 317.21.odt

weapon used and the parts of the body targeted clearly demonstrate the

intention and knowledge required for commission of offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, while the manner of entry attracts

Section 450 of the IPC. Accordingly, the Point Nos. (i) & (ii) are answered in

the affirmative and (iii) is answered in the negative.

As to Point No.(iv) :

29. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are based on

proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and do not suffer from

perversity or legal infirmity. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the

conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 307 and 450 of the IPC. The

appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 16.07.2019

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial

No. 14 of 2017 is confirmed.

30. Fees of the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant be quantified

and paid as per rules.

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




Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2026 14:29:13