[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mahendra Mahadeo Binekar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:788-DB
1 apeal 138.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2021
Mahendra Mahadeo Binekar C-10486
Aged 34 Years, Occ. Labour
R/o Binaki Sonar Toli, Behind Joshipura,
Near Satpute Control Nagpur,
...Appellant
Detained in Central Prison, Nagpur.
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra through Police Station
Officer, Yashodharanagar, Dist. Nagpur ... Respondent
Shri A.S.Band, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K.R.Lule, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
Reserved on : 8th January, 2026.
Pronounced on : 19th January, 2026
JUDGMENT :
(PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA J.)
The appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the
judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned District and
Sessions Judge-11, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 442/2016, by which the
appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). The appellant was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- for
the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for one year. He was further sentenced to suffer simple
2 apeal 138.21.odt
imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence
under Section 324 IPC, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Both substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the son of the deceased, Jyotibai
Shinde, namely Kapil Shinde, was acquainted with the appellant. Kapil
lodged an oral report stating that he and the appellant Mahendra Binekar
knew each other. Prior to one and a half year of incident they maintained
pigeons. There was a previous quarrel between Kapil and appellant, during
which Kapil had assaulted appellant with a knife, resulting in registration of
an offence against Kapil at Yashodharanagar Police Station, Nagpur. Because
of this incident, appellant was allegedly bearing a grudge against Kapil.
About two months prior to the incident, the appellant had assaulted Kapil
with a wooden log, but the matter was settled between them and no
complaint was lodged.
3. On 22.05.2016 at about 10.45 p.m., when Kapil was returning home
after work and reached near the house of Devrao Likhar, the appellant came
and all of a sudden assaulted Kapil with a knife. Out of fear, Kapil ran
towards his house shouting for help. When his family members enquired, he
informed them about the assault. Thereafter, his mother Jyotibai Shinde went
to the appellant to pacify him. At that time, the appellant assaulted her with
a knife, causing her to collapse on the ground, bleeding, and then fled from
the spot. Kapil and his sister Aarti immediately took their mother to Mayo
Hospital, where she was declared dead.
3 apeal 138.21.odt
4. On the basis of the report (Exh. 11), Crime No.314 of 2016 was
registered for offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC. During
investigation, the spot panchnama was prepared, the appellant was arrested
in presence of two panchas, and the weapon (Exh. 18) and clothes of the
appellant (Exh. 26) were seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded on
24/05/2016 and on the same day seized articles were sent for forensic
examination. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
5. The learned trial Court framed Charge (Exh.2) for the offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC. The appellant pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including
Kapil Shinde (P.W.1), Aarti Shinde (P.W.2), Ashish Kodharlikar (P.W.3), Rupesh
Nimje (P.W.4), Kishor Bharti (P.W.5), Medical Officers Dr. Pruthviraj
Rahangdale (P.W.6), Dr. Sachin Giri (P.W.7),API Rajendra Makdum (P.W.8),
and API Suryabhan Selote (P.W.9). The statement of the accused under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein he
denied the allegations and claimed false implication.
6. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court held that the
testimonies of P.W.1 Kapil, P.W.2 Aarti, and P.W.4 Rupesh, who were eye-
witnesses to the incident, clearly established that the appellant assaulted
Jyotibai Shinde with a knife. The contention that their evidence should be
discarded as they were related witnesses was rejected, as no material
contradictions or circumstances were brought on record to discredit their
4 apeal 138.21.odt
testimony. The learned trial Court further held that the death of Jyotibai
Shinde was a direct result of the assault by the appellant and that the nature
of injuries and the vital parts of the body targeted clearly showed intention to
cause death.
7. The learned trial Court also accepted the evidence relating to the
assault on Kapil under Section 324 of the IPC, which was duly corroborated
by medical evidence. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced
as stated above. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
8. Heard learned Counsel Mr. A.S. Band for the appellant and Mr. K.R.
Lule, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W.2 Aarti could not
be treated as an eye-witness, as in cross-examination she admitted that she
saw her mother lying near the house of Devrao Likhar, which creates doubt
about her presence at the time of assault. It was further submitted that the
deceased was not the original target and there was no premeditation or
intention to cause her death. According to the appellant, the incident
occurred suddenly in the heat of passion, and therefore the offence of murder
is not made out. It was also submitted that the appellant has been in custody
since 26.05.2016 and has already undergone a substantial period of
imprisonment.
5 apeal 138.21.odt
10. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses clearly
establishes the guilt of the appellant. It was contended that the deceased had
only approached the appellant to pacify him, but he intentionally assaulted
her with a knife. The post-mortem report reveals as many as thirteen injuries
on the body of the deceased, clearly indicating a brutal attack. Medical
evidence and recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant further
corroborate the prosecution case. It was therefore submitted that no
interference is warranted in the judgment of the trial Court.
11. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :
Sr. No. Points Finding
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved that In the affirmative.
deceased Jyotibai Shinde died homicidal
death ?
(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved that In the affirmative.
the appellant-accused assaulted Jyotibai
Shinde with a knife, causing her death,
thereby committing an offence under
Section 302 of the IPC ?
(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved that In the affirmative.
the appellant caused simple hurt to P.W.1
Kapil Shinde by a sharp weapon, thereby
committing an offence under Section 324 of
IPC ?
(iv) Whether interference is called for in the In the negative.
learned trial Court's judgment?
(v) What order? As per Final Order.
6 apeal 138.21.odt
As to point Nos. (i) and (ii):
These two points are interlinked and hence they are
decided by common reasoning.
12. Before adverting to the points of determination, we find it appropriate
to briefly refer to the role and deposition of each prosecution witness.
12.1 PW-1 Kapil Pappuji Shinde, the injured eyewitness and son of the
deceased, deposed that the appellant was residing in the same locality and
there was prior enmity between them due to an earlier quarrel. He stated
that on 22.05.2016 at about 10.30-10.45 p.m., the appellant assaulted him
with a knife near the house of Deorao Likhar, causing a bleeding injury on his
left eyebrow. PW-1 ran home and informed his family members, whereupon
his mother went to reason with the appellant. PW-1 and his sister followed
her and witnessed the appellant assaulting his mother with a knife, as a
result of which she fell down with bleeding injuries. The injured was
immediately taken to Mayo Hospital, where she succumbed during
treatment. PW-1 lodged the FIR, pointed out the spot, and identified the
blood-stained clothes, the weapon and the accused. In cross-examination,
though his past criminal cases and alleged hostility were suggested, his
testimony regarding the occurrence and the involvement of the accused
remained unshaken.
12.2 PW-2 Aarti Pappuji Shinde, daughter of the deceased and sister of
PW-1, corroborated the version of PW-1 regarding prior enmity between the
accused and PW-1. She deposed that on 22.05.2016, the accused first
7 apeal 138.21.odt
assaulted PW-1 with a knife causing a bleeding injury, following which the
deceased went to reason with the accused and was thereafter assaulted with
a knife near the house of Ambre. PW-2 stated that the injured was
immediately taken to Mayo Hospital, where she was declared dead. She
identified the accused, the blood-stained clothes of PW-1 and the deceased,
and the weapon. Despite suggestions of false implication and reference to
prior criminal cases of family members, nothing material was elicited in
cross-examination to discredit her testimony.
12.3 PW-3 Aashish Madhavrao Kodharlikar acted as a panch witness to the
disclosure statement of the accused and the consequent recovery of the
weapon. He deposed that on 24.05.2016, pursuant to the disclosure made by
the accused, the police, along with the panchas, went to the house of the
accused at Binaki, from where the accused produced a knife kept beneath a
cooler, which came to be seized under a panchnama. PW-3 identified his
signatures on the disclosure statement and the seizure panchnama. Though
in cross-examination he expressed inability to recall certain contents of the
documents, nothing material was elicited to discredit the factum of recovery
at the instance of the accused.
12.4 PW-4 Rupesh Dnanyeshwar Nimje, an independent eyewitness and
tenant of the accused, deposed that on the night of 22.05.2016 between
10.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m., he witnessed the accused Mahendra assault PW-1
Kapil with a knife, after which PW-1 ran towards his house. He further stated
that when the deceased Jyoti came to reason with the accused, the accused
8 apeal 138.21.odt
assaulted her with a knife, causing her to fall down. PW-4 stated that PW-1
and PW-2 immediately took the injured to hospital, where she later
succumbed. He identified the accused as well as the knife used in the assault.
In cross-examination, though suggestions were made regarding his tenancy
under the accused and alleged partiality towards the family of PW-1, nothing
material was brought on record to discredit his presence at the spot or his
testimony regarding the assault by the accused.
12.5 PW-5 Kishor Balkrushna Bharti was examined as a panch witness to
the spot panchnama and various seizures. He deposed that blood samples
were collected from the spot of incident near the house of Deorao Nikhar
under a spot panchnama. He further proved the seizure of blood-stained
clothes of PW-1, the deceased, and the accused, as well as the seizure of
blood samples of the accused and the informant, all under respective
panchnamas. He identified his signatures on the said panchnamas. In cross-
examination, though the witness admitted that he had signed the
panchnamas without reading their contents, he did not dispute his presence
during the spot inspection and seizures. Nothing material was elicited to
discredit the procedural acts proved through him.
12.6 PW-6 Dr. Pruthaviraj Mitaram Rahangdale, Medical Officer, deposed
that on 22.05.2016 he examined PW-1 Kapil Shinde at about 11.45 p.m. and
found a fresh incised wound above the left eyebrow, which was simple in
nature and caused by a sharp weapon. He proved the injury certificate and
the medicolegal papers. He further stated that the deceased Jyoti Shinde was
9 apeal 138.21.odt
brought to the hospital at about 11.50 p.m. in a dead condition and was
accordingly declared brought dead and sent for post-mortem. PW-6 also
examined the knife sent by the police and opined that it was a sharp and
dangerous weapon, bearing blood stains, and that the injury sustained by
PW-1, as well as the injuries noted in the post-mortem report of the deceased,
were possible by the said weapon. He identified the weapon in Court. In
cross-examination, though general suggestions were made regarding the
possibility of injuries by other sharp weapons, nothing was elicited to
discredit his medical opinion.
12.7 PW-7 Dr. Sachin Subhash Giri, Assistant Professor in Forensic
Medicine, conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Jyoti
Shinde on 23.05.2016. He found multiple incised and stab wounds on vital
parts including the face, neck, chest, abdomen and hands, with
corresponding internal injuries to the trachea, lungs and ribs. He opined that
the injuries were ante-mortem, caused by a sharp and pointed weapon, and
that the injuries to the trachea and lungs were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. He proved the post-mortem report and
further opined that the injuries were possible by the weapon recovered in the
case. In cross-examination, though it was suggested that similar injuries
could be caused by other sharp weapons, the witness remained firm on the
cause of death and the nature of injuries, and nothing material was elicited
to discredit the post-mortem findings.
10 apeal 138.21.odt
12.8 PW-8 Rajendra Ananda Makdum, the Investigating Officer, deposed
that he took over the investigation on 23.05.2016. He proved the seizures of
blood-stained clothes of the informant, the deceased and the accused, as well
as the collection of blood samples of the informant and the accused, under
various panchnamas. He further deposed that pursuant to the disclosure
statement made by the accused, the accused led the police and panch
witnesses to his house, from where a blood-stained knife was recovered and
seized. PW-8 proved the disclosure statement, recovery panchnama,
forwarding of muddemal to the forensic laboratory, medical correspondence,
and filing of the charge-sheet. He identified the seized articles and the
accused in Court. In cross-examination, omissions and alleged lapses in
investigation were suggested; however, nothing material was brought on
record to discredit the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused
or the core steps of investigation.
12.9 PW-9 Suryabhan Madhav Selote, API, deposed that on the night
intervening 22.05.2016 and 23.05.2016, upon receiving information
regarding an assault at Binaki Sonartoli, he proceeded to the spot, learnt that
the injured had been shifted to Mayo Hospital, and thereafter visited the
hospital where the deceased was declared dead. He prepared the spot
panchnama, collected blood samples from the spot and the adjoining wall,
recorded the report of PW-1 Kapil Shinde, registered the offence, and
arrested the accused. He proved the relevant station diary entries, FIR, arrest
memo, spot panchnama, and seizure of blood-stained clothes of the accused.
11 apeal 138.21.odt
He further stated that the investigation was thereafter handed over to PW-8.
In cross-examination, certain omissions and procedural lapses were
suggested; however, nothing material was elicited to discredit the registration
of the offence, preparation of the spot panchnama, or the initial steps taken
in the investigation.
13. On appreciation of ocular evidence, it is noted that the prosecution
relies mainly on the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4 as eye-witnesses.
14. The prosecution case rests substantially on the testimony of P.W.1, who
is an injured witness. His presence at the spot is natural and unquestionable,
as he himself was assaulted by the appellant moments before the fatal
incident. He has consistently deposed that when his mother Jyotibai Shinde
approached the appellant to reason with him, the appellant assaulted her
with a knife. His testimony has remained firm and unshaken in cross-
examination. The injury sustained by P.W.1 is duly corroborated by medical
evidence, lending further assurance to his presence and credibility. The law is
well settled as recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 that the testimony of an
injured witness stands on a higher pedestal and ordinarily commands great
weight unless serious infirmities are demonstrated, which are conspicuously
absent in the present case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
reproduced as follow:
12 apeal 138.21.odt
"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 that 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." [vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar,
Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab,
Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra,
Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P., Dinesh Kumar v. State of
Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva
Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.]
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the
special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured
accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under :
(SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29)
"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
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."
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
13 apeal 138.21.odt
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."
15. P.W.2 is daughter of the deceased. Counsel for the appellant submits
that the admission of P.W.2 that she saw her mother lying near the house of
Devrao Likhar casts a doubt on her presence at the scene and the exact place
of occurrence. Against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that
her testimony, when read in its entirety, clearly shows that she came out
immediately after being informed by P.W.1 and had witnessed the appellant
fleeing after assaulting her mother.
We find substance in the submission of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor. The testimony of P.W.2 remains consistent on material particulars
and the discrepancy pointed out is only peripheral and does not affect the
core of the prosecution case. It is well settled that minor inconsistencies do
not discredit an otherwise truthful witness, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra,
(2000) 8 SCC 457. Tested on this principle, the evidence of P.W.2 inspires
confidence and lends corroboration to the prosecution version. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment (supra) is reproduced as follow -
"42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in
material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the
witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not
necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the
version given by the witness in the court is different in material
particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case
of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor
14 apeal 138.21.odt
contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful
witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of
observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the
earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the
present case, the same would not cause any dent in the
testimony of PW 2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of
a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the
whole of the testimony of such witness. --------"
16. Next comes the evidence of P.W.4, an independent eyewitness. He
deposed that he was a tenant of the appellant and acquaintance of the PW 1
and had no enmity with either of them. His status rules out any possibility of
false implication. P.W.4 stated that on the day of the incident, he witnessed
the appellant assaulting Kapil with a knife. He further deposed that
thereafter, the appellant assaulted Jyotibai Shinde when she tried to reason
with him. We find that the testimony of P.W.4 is categorical and consistent
with the prosecution version. Nothing material has been elicited in his cross-
examination to discredit his evidence or to suggest any motive for falsely
implicating the appellant. His presence at the spot is natural and probable.
His evidence, therefore, inspires confidence and remains unshaken.
17. P.W.7 Dr. Sachin Giri is an important witness, who conducted the post-
mortem. On external examination, he found following injuries:
1) Incised wound present over the right side of face 2 cm below the
right eye, vertically placed of size 05 cm X 0.5cm muscle deep,
margins sharp edged, both ends point i.e. acute angled.
2) Incised wound present over the lower lip in midline of size 2.5 cm
X 0.2 cm, obliquely placed cutting the lip through and through up
to the buccal mucosa, margins sharp edged, ends pointed.
3) Stab wound present on the anterior aspect of lower 1/3 of neck,
just close to and parallel to midline, of size 03 cm X 0.2 cm, cavity
deep, vertically placed, underlying tracheal rings are ruptured.
15 apeal 138.21.odt
4) Stab wound present over the left side side of chest, situated 04 cm
from midline and 16 cm below tip of the left shoulder of size 02
cm X 0.2 cm subcutaneous fat protruding from the gapping
margins, edges sharp and ends having acute angle, subcutaneous
tissue deep.
5) Stab wound present over the right side of chest situated 6.5 cm
below injury No.3, vertically placed of size 3.5 cm X 0.5 cm cavity
deep, margins sharpedged, ends having acute angle, underlying
right third rib fractured.
6) Incised wound present over the right side of chest, 0.5 cm above
the upper end of injury No.5, horizontally placed of size 5.5 cm X
0.5 cm, with subcutaneous fat protruding from the gap of wound,
having sharp edged margins and acute angle of the ends,
subcutaneous tissue deep.
7) Stab wound present over the right side of chest, situated 1.5 cm
below the lateral end of injury number 06, vertically placed of size
03 cm X 0.5 cm with gapping of subcutaneous fat through the
wound, margins sharp edged, angles acute at both ends, cavity
deep.
8) Stab wound present over the lateral aspet of right side of chest,
vertically placed, situated 03 cm below and lateral from lower end
of injury number 07 of size 04 cm X 0.5 cm, with gaping of
subcutaneous fat from the wound, margins sharp edged, ends with
acute angle muscle deep.
9) Stab wound present over the outer and lateral quadrant of right
breast, horizontally placed situated 05 cm from the lower end of
injury no.8 of size 3 cm X 0.5 cm muscle deep, having sharp edged
margins and acute angle at both ends.
10) Stab wound present over the right side of middle ofabdomen,
horizontally placed situated 05 cm above the upper end of
umbilicus and 1 cm from midline of size 04 cm X 0.5 cm
subcutaneous tissue deep margins sharp edged, ends having acute
angle.
11) Incised wound present over the dorsum of right hand, vertically
placed both ends extending from right wrist joint to base of right
index finger passing through and through up to the palm, of size
08 cm X 0.5 cm with muscle and tendors of the hand exposed out,
margins sharp edged. Having acute angle at both ends.
12) Incised wound present over the right palm, extending from the
base of the thumb upto the base of right index finger,
corresponding with above injury number 11 of size 4.5 cm X 0.5
cm through and through muscle deep.
13) Incised wound present over the lateral aspect of dorsum of right
hand, of size 07 cm X 0.5 cm muscle deep, situated 4.5 cm lateral
16 apeal 138.21.odt
to injury number 11. Margins sharp edged, ends having acute
angle.
On internal examination-
a) Walls, ribs cartilage- Fracture of the third rib on right side, at
medial end, intercostal muscles damaged at 2nd intercostal space.
b) Pleura- Ruptured at places on right side 200 ml.Blood in cavity.
c) Larynx, trachea and bronchi- Larynx and bronchi intact, lower
tracheal rings ruptured, correspondent to injury no.3 mentioned in
column no.17.
d) Right Lung- 1. cut wound present over right upper lobe on
posterior medial margin of size 3 cm X 0.5 cm.
2. Cut wound present over posterior medial margin of right upper
lobe 2 cm below cut no.01 of size 1 cm X 0.5 cm.
3. cut wound present over anteriour aspect of middle lobe, of size
3 cm X 0.5cm,
4. Cut wound on posterior medial border of left lower lobe.
e) Left lung- Cut wound on posterio medial border of left lower lobe,
of size 3.5 cm X 0.5 cm.
f) Pericardium - Ruptured on posterior surface of size 5 cm X 0.5 cm.
18. He deposed that injuries Nos. 3, 5, and 7 were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further deposed that the injuries
mentioned in column no. 17 were ante-mortem. He opined that death is due
to injury to trachea and lungs. From the description of the weapon, he opined
that injuries on the dead body were possible by said weapon.
19. On careful appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court finds that
the prosecution has successfully established the said fact. Further, the
recovery of the knife (Article-P5) at the instance of the appellant, proved
through panch and investigating witnesses, and the opinion of the medical
17 apeal 138.21.odt
expert that the injuries were possible by the said weapon, complete the chain
of evidence. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted
Jyotibai Shinde with a knife, resulting in her death. Accordingly, the answer
to point Nos.(i) and (ii) are in the affirmative.
As to point Nos. (iii) and (iv) :
20. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly establishes that he was assaulted by the
appellant with a knife prior to the assault on the deceased. The injury
sustained by him is duly proved by the medical evidence, which confirms that
the injury was caused by a sharp weapon. The testimony of P.W.4 further
corroborates this fact. From the evidence placed on record, it appears to us
that Counsel for appellant has failed to bring on record any circumstance to
doubt the occurrence of this assault. Hence, the essential ingredients of
Section 324 of the IPC are fully satisfied.
21. The learned Counsel has contended that the deceased was not the
original target and that the incident occurred suddenly without
premeditation. However, even if the deceased was not the initial target, the
conduct of the appellant at the time of the incident clearly demonstrates the
requisite intention or, at the very least, the knowledge contemplated under
Section 300 of the IPC. The appellant inflicted multiple stab injuries with a
deadly weapon on vital parts of the body of an unarmed woman who had
merely approached him to pacify the situation. The number of injuries, their
18 apeal 138.21.odt
location, and the force used leave no manner of doubt that the appellant
intended to cause such bodily injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death (Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC
465). None of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC are attracted in the
present case, as there is no evidence of grave and sudden provocation or a
mutual fight. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in holding that the
offence committed by the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of Section
302 of the IPC.
22. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record. We
find no perversity, illegality, or infirmity in its approach. No interference,
therefore, is called for in the impugned judgment.
23. The end result is, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and
324 of the IPC. The trial Court's finding is in consonance with material placed
before us. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are proper
and justified, and therefore, deserve to be confirmed. Accordingly, Point No.
(iii) is answered in the affirmative and Point No.(iv) in the negative.
As to Point No. (v):
24. Having answered first four points in the manner hereinabove, there is
no substance in the appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order-
19 apeal 138.21.odt
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned
District and Sessions Judge-11, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 442/2016 is
confirmed.
[NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.] [ANIL L. PANSARE, J.]
sknair
Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/01/2026 18:32:22
