Dismissed

Ramesh Laxman Bote v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jun 2007APEAL/1026/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal challenging a life imprisonment sentence for murder and an offence under Section 324 IPC, the High Court, noting the absence of the appellant, relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Bani Singh to uphold the trial court's conviction. The court found the prosecution evidence credible and the trial court justified.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were maintained.

Ramesh Laxman Bote Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1026 OF 2003

¶4

 Ramesh Laxman Bote ]
 Age 19 years, Occupation Labour ]
 Residing at Ganesh Nagar, ]
 Telco Road, Near Water Tank ]
 Bhosari, Pune (At present ]
 detained in Yerawada Central ]
 Central Prison, Pune 411 006 ] ..Appellant
 (Ori. Accused)
 versus

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra ]
 (through Officer in charge ]
 Pimpri Police Station, Pune ] ..Respondents

¶6

 None for the Appellant / Accused.

¶7

 Mr. D. R. More, APP for the Respondents - State.

¶8

CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, &
SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.

¶9

 DATE : 5TH JUNE, 2007.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : D. G. DESHPANDE, J.) :

¶11

 1. This matter was on board for hearing on
 4.6.2007. Nobody appeared for the appellant -
 accused. We heard the learned APP and kept the
 matter today. Today also nobody appeared for the
 appellant / accused, and, therefore, we proceeded to
 hear and dispose of the matter on the basis of the
 judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bani

¶12

:2:

¶13

Singh & others vs. State of U.P. reported in 1996

¶14

Cri.L.J. 3491.

¶15

 2. The accused has filed this appeal

¶16

 challenging his conviction under Section 302 of the
 IPC by which he is sentenced to imprisonment for
 life, fine, and imprisonment for six months and fine
 for offence under Section 324 of the IPC.

¶17

 3. This is a case where for a very trifle

¶18

 reason the accused inflicted blows after blows on
 the person of the deceased Bhagwat Mane by Rampuri
 knife and killed him. There was one more Juvenile
 offender but he has been tried under the Juvenile
 Justice Act. It appears that the deceased Bhagwat
 Mane - accused and other injured were all friends.

¶19

 Deceased was demanding Rs.10/- from the accused.
 Accused told him that he does not have money and
 then he told the deceased to wait near Salvekar

¶20

 Hospital. Thereafter the deceased Bhagwat Mane,
 complainant - Sanjay Pawar and one Raju Chapalkar
 waited near Hockey Stadium. Then accused - Ramesh
 Bote and Juvenile Offender Prakash Shantaram Pawar

¶21

 came there. Deceased again demanded Rs.10/- for
 consuming "Goa Gutka". Accused told him that he was

¶22

:3:

¶23

 not having change. Then deceased went on demanding

¶24

 Rs.3/- or Rs.2/- or Rs.1/-. Accused did not pay
 anything but lastly accused took out a Jambia from
 his pant saying that he would give Rs.1/- and then
 assaulted deceased Bhagwat Mane with the said Jambia
 causing injuries to his left hand, chest, ribs and
 when complainant - Sanjay Pawar tried to save
 deceased Bhagwat Mane, accused also assaulted him on
 his right hand’s wrist with that Jambia. At that
 time Raju Chapalkar also tried to rescue the

¶25

 deceased. But thereafter accused ran away.

¶26

 4. Thereafter Bhagwat Mane was taken to the
 hospital of Dr. Savlekar and on advise of Dr.
 Savlekar he was removed to Yashwantrao Chawan
 Memorial Hospital as the condition of Bhagwat Mane
 was serious. From Y.C.M. Hospital he was shifted
 to Sassoon Hospital, Pune, where he succumbed to his
 injuries at about 12.40 mid night. Then Sanjay
 Pawar lodged complaint against the accused. Offence
 was registered. Investigation was started.
 Panchnama was drawn. Incriminating articles from
 the spot were seized. Dead body of Bhagwat Mane was
 sent for post mortem and then statement of witnesses
 were recorded. Jambia was received at the instance

¶27

:4:

¶28

 of the accused so also blood stained clothes and

¶29

 then charge sheet came to be filed.

¶30

 5. The trial court believed the case of the
 prosecution and convicted the accused and hence this
 appeal.

¶31

 6. It is pertinent to note from the post mortem
 report that there were as many as 13 injuries to the
 deceased, followed by internal damage to the lung
 and it is clear that the deceased was brutally
 assaulted for the minor demand of Rs.1/- i.e.
 starting from Rs.10/- and coming down to Rs.1/- for
 purchasing "Goa Gutka".

¶32

 7. The most important witness of the
 prosecution is Sanjay Pawar who lodged his

¶33

 complaint. He has given the story as stated above
 i.e. the cause of dispute, the persons present,
 taking out knife by the accused and inflicting blows
 after blows and causing injury to the witness
 himself on the wrist. He stated about filing
 complaint Exhibit 21 showing spot of offence to the

¶34

 police. He identified the photograph of the
 deceased. He was subjected to cross examination but

¶35

:5:

¶36

 apart from some minor omissions on record, there is

¶37

 absolutely nothing to disbelieve this witness.
 Those minor omissions are about reducing the demand
 from Rs.10/- to Rs.2/-. This witness is supported
 by P.W. 2 Raju Chapalkar, who was also present at
 the spot. He has given some details in his evidence
 including the demand by the deceased from Rs.10/- to
 Rs.1/- and taking out of pen knife by the accused
 and then inflicting blows at the chest of the
 deceased and other parts including abdomen, waist
 etc. He also stated that accused caused injuries to
 Sanjay Pawar. In the cross-examination also there
 is nothing to disbelieve the witness.

¶38

 8. Evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 is corroborated by
 P.W. 3 Dr. Rajaram Vasudev Savlekar, who runs
 dispensary. He has stated that one injured person
 was brought in the hospital for treatment at 9.30
 p.m. His condition was serious. He informed the
 police and thereafter the injured person was taken
 to Y.M.C. Hospital. Sanjay Pawar P.W. 1 was
 examined by Dr. Shailaja. She noted that she
 examined him on 9.45 p.m.; that he had abrasion on
 right forearm just above wrist joint, the age of the
 injury was less than six hours and the abrasion was

¶39

:6:

¶40

 possible by Article 9. If Sanjay Pawar intervened
 in the scuffle, that injury was possible by the
 knife. The patient gave history of assault, that
 is, he was assaulted at 9 p.m.

¶41

 9. P.W. 6 is ASI Shrikant Harkpal, he has
 stated that on 21.11.2001, he was in charge of Sant
 Tukaram Police Chowky, Pimpri. He received
 information on phone that a boy was assaulted at
 Nehru Nagar and was admitted to Y.C.M. Hospital for
 treatment and he has recorded complaint of Sanjay
 Pawar. He then went to Y.C.M. Hospital. He found
 that Bhagwat Mane was not in a position to speak.
 Medical Officer gave his opinion in that regard.
 Then he went to the scene of offence and drew the
 panchnama, collected blood stained earth and sample
 of earth. He attached slippers. Then he went to
 Sassoon Hospital and learnt about the death of the
 victim and then he sent the body for post mortem.
 The panchnama proved on record corroborated the
 testimony of eye witnesses to the effect that the
 incident took place at the time and place given by
 P.W. 1 and 2. Post mortem report is proved by P.W.
 7 Dr. Shrikant, the report is at Exhibit 33. Then
 P.W. 8 Raju Jadhav is examined as a witness of

¶42

:7:

¶43

 discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. At

¶44

 the instance of the accused, a pen knife was
 recovered which was hidden under the grass.
 Memorandum was prepared about the statement given.
 Then the accused led the police party to the spot
 where he had hidden the knife. He proved panchnama
 Exhibit 35. The knife had no blood stains.
 Prosecution also examined P.W. 9 P.I. - Shamrao

¶45

 Mohite - the investigating officer regarding
 different steps taken during investigation. C.A.
 report is also on record.

¶46

 10. The learned APP contended that the

¶47

 prosecution has been successful to prove guilt of
 the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are two
 eye witnesses to the incident. P.W. 1 and 2, one
 of them is injured, which shows the presence of P.W.
 1 at the spot and the testimony of P.W. 1 and 2 is
 corroborated by the medical evidence. Accused had
 number of injuries on his person. There is no
 enmity between the parties. There is no reason why
 P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 would falsely implicate the
 accused. He also contended that simple defence of
 denial is of no use. Our attention was also drawn
 by the learned APP to question No.45 put to the

¶48

:8:

¶49

 accused by the trial court in the examination under

¶50

 Section 313. The same reads as under:

¶51

Q.No.45 Do you want to say anything else on
 your behalf in this case?

¶52

Ans. Bhagwant Mane, Sanjay Pawar, and
Raju Chafalkar came from Pimpri and
they met me at Salvekar Hospital on
that day. Myself and Prakash Pawar
started proceeding towards Nehru
Nagar. They asked me as to over I
was proceeding. I told from, I was
proceeding to Nehru Nagar. They
told me to wait for five minutes.
When I came back. From Nehru Nagar.
I found that, Bhagwat Mane, Raju
Chafalkar and Sanjay they were
standing near Salvekar Hospital.
Bhagwat Mane demanded Rs.10/- from
me. I told him that, I was having
money. He demanded Rs.3/- from me.
I told him that I was not having
money. I told him that, since he
saw a picture I might be having
money. He demanded money from Raju
Chafalkar. Hence after cation took
place between Raju Chafalkar and
Bhagwat Mane. At that time myself
and Prakash Pawar left the place and
we went to our house. I did not
know what have deposed thereafter
police have filed a false case. I
do not know anything the incident.

¶53

Police beat me, I do not point out
any penknife. Police obtained my
signatures on a blank paper."

¶54

 From this statement or reply, it is clear that
 accused support the story of the prosecution about

¶55

:9:

¶56

 demand of Bhagwat Mane and ultimately reduction to
 Rs.3/-. Therefore, in this background it has to be

¶57

 held that the trial court was fully justified in
 convicting the accused. Judgment is sound and
 logical and reasonable, and therefore no

¶58

 interference is called for.

¶59

 11. In the result we pass the following order:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

 Appeal is dismissed.

¶62

 The conviction and sentence imposed by the

¶63

 accused is maintained.

¶64

(SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)

Ramesh Laxman Bote v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Laxman Bote v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ramesh Sadashiv Khatpe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

State vs. Nanubai Dhanjibhai Vegada and Anr. Vs Nanubai Dhanjibhai Vegada and Anr.

Rajbali @ Vakil Bhullan Dube Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammod Ali Mohammod Habib Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khanderao Dnyanu Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sikandar Haji Malang Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra