Partly allowed

Anwarshah Babushah Fakir and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Jun 2012APEAL/149/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under IPC 325 for culpable hurt. The High Court held that due to inconsistent dying declarations, reasonable doubt existed regarding the involvement of one appellant, leading to his acquittal. For the remaining co-accused, the Court affirmed the conviction under IPC 325, rejecting the argument that medical negligence absolved them of responsibility for

What did the court decide?

Appeal of Appellant 4 allowed; conviction and sentence quashed, accused acquitted. Appeal of Appellants 1 to 3 dismissed.

Anwarshah Babushah Fakir and Ors. Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2000

¶5

Anwar Shah Babu Shah Fakir, Age 35 years,

¶6

Amin Shah Babu Shah Fakir, Age 32 yrs.,

¶7

Rashid Shah Babu Shah Fakir, Age 25 yrs.,

¶8

Pandurang Kashinath Kamble, Age 45 yrs., All resident of village Lonje, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. ....Appellants.

¶9

Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent.

¶10

Mr. G. V. Wani, Advocate for appellants. Mr. R.P. Phatke, A.P.P. for State.

¶11

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 25th June, 2012.

¶12

JUDGMENT :

¶13

The appeal is filed against judgment and order passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jalagaon delivered in Sessions Case No. 238/1998. The appellants are convicted and

¶14

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶15

¶16

sentenced for offence punishable under section 325 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. Both the sides are heard.

¶17

The deceased Pandit Fulsing Gaikwad was a resident of village Lavanje, Tahsil Chalisgaon. The appellants are also residents of same village. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are real brothers inter-se. The deceased was a labour contractor and he was supplying labour to the person from Gujrat State. Appellant Amin is also a labour contractor and he was also supplying labour to the persons from Gujrat State. Due to the competition in this business, the relations between the appellants and deceased were strained.

¶18

The incident took place on 16.8.1998 at about 7.30 p.m. near S.T. stand of village Lavanje. The deceased had just alighted from bus at the stand and he was returning to home. The appellants and two more persons intercepted the deceased and Amin picked up quarrel with the deceased. During quarrel the deceased was assaulted by using iron bar, chain and sticks. Bleeding injuries were caused to the deceased on his head, abdomen and legs. The incident took place near the house of one Tarabai Wagh and she shouted for help. Within no time, the relatives of deceased, who include Walmik Wagh came to the

¶19

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶20

¶21

spot. The assailants then ran away.

¶22

Deelip and Walmik, two sons of deceased took the deceased first to police station for giving report. Police advised Deelip and Walmik to shift their father for treatment and so, he was shifted to Municipal Hospital, Chalisgaon. Rathod, the Head Constable, who was attached to Chalisgaon Police Station, recorded the statement of Pandit Gaikwad, the deceased, in the hospital in the early hours of 17.8.1998. The Municipal Hospital advised the relatives of Pandit to shift him to Civil Hospital and so Pandit was shifted to Civil Hospital, Dhule. On the basis of the statement recorded by Rathod in Municipal Hospital the crime came to be registered in Chalisgaon Police Station at C.R. No. 177/1998 against the appellants.

¶23

In Civil Hopsital, Dhule the police from Dhule got the statement of Pandit recorded through Executive Magistrate. In the statement, Pandit took the names of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and two more persons like Umar Babu and Isha Babu. Pundit succumbed to injuries on 21.8.1998. P.M. was conducted on the dead body of Pandit after preparing enquest.

¶24

During the course of investigation, panchanama of the

¶25

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶26

¶27

spot, where the incident took place, was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses. The appellants came to be arrested. Police could not trace out Umer Babu and Isha Babu. On the basis of statements given by the appellants, weapons came to be recovered. The clothes of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were also taken over. They were having blood stains. Statements of Walmik and other eye witnesses came to be recorded. The clothes of the deceased, clothes of the accused and weapons came to be forwarded to C.A. Office. After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed for offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 326 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. In due course, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The charge came to be framed for offence under section 302 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. On the basis of the evidence given by the prosecution, the Trial Court has held the appellants guilty for offence punishable under section 325 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The Trial Court has acquitted the appellants of the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., by holding that the death took place due to medical negligence, though there were injuries caused to the deceased by the appellants. The points raised by both the sides are being discussed at proper place. It appears that the State did not challenge the decision of the Trial Court. Revision filed for complainant to challenge the decision, is dismissed by this Court,

¶28

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶29

¶30

as the objections were not removed.

¶31

In the case based on both dying declarations and the direct evidence, it is always desirable to first see the allegations made in the dying declarations. There are more circumstances for such approach in the present case. When the incident took place after 7.00 p.m. of 16.8.1998, the crime at C.R. No. 177/1998 came to be registered in Chalisgaon Police Station on 17.8.1998 at about 1.45 hours and that too on the basis of dying declaration of Pandit recorded by Police Officer Rathod (PW No. 10). No record is produced to show that the two eye witnesses had given report to the police prior to this dying declaration. No record like entry made in station diary in respect of such information is also there. Both the eye witnesses Yuvraj (PW No. 5) and Walmik (PW No. 6) are interested witnesses as the deceased was their close relative. Walmik (PW No. 6) is a son of deceased and he has admitted that Yuvraj is his distant cousin. Both of them have given evidence that they were present in their respective houses and when a son of Tarabai came to there houses to inform about the incident, they left for the spot of offence. Though they were come with such a case in substantive evidence, they had not stated before the police officer that after receiving the news from the son of Tarabai they had rushed to the spot. This omission in relation to

¶32

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶33

¶34

previous statement is material and this omission is duly proved by the defence.

¶35

The first dying declaration was recorded by Rathod (PW No. 10) and it is proved in his evidence as Exh. 79. It was recorded on 17.8.1998 at 1.45 hours and Pandit died on 21.8.1998 i.e. after about 4 days of recording of dying declaration. The second dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate after some time though on 17.8.1998 itself. The evidence of two witnesses, who recorded the dying declarations shows that Pandit was conscious and fit when the dying declarations were recorded. The doctors, who conducted the P.M. examination and who had examined Pandit in Chalisgaon Hospital, are examined in the Court. Nothing is brought on record by defence to create probability that Pandit was not fit or conscious when the statements were recorded. No circumstances are brought on the record in the evidence of Executive Magistrate (PW No. 9) and Rathod (PW No. 10) to create doubt about the two recorded dying declarations.

¶36

The first dying declaration, Exh. 79, shows that the deceased disclosed that the incident had taken place near S.T. stand after 7.30 p.m. when he was returning to home, after

¶37

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶38

¶39

alighting from a bus at S.T. stand. The dying declaration shows that only after assault made on him, Tarabai Wagh raised shouts and she called for help. No name of son of Tarabai is mentioned in Exh. 79, as a person who was called by Tarabai or who was present on the spot. In the second dying declaration which was recorded at 4.15 a.m. the deceased disclosed that the attack on him was made when he was alone and some villagers intervened to save him. In the second dying declaration Pandit disclosed that his relatives like Tarabai, his son Walmik and others came to the spot subsequently and then he was shifted to the hospital.

¶40

The prosecution has not examined Tarabai and also her son Dinesh, who had allegedly given the news of incident to the relatives of Pandit. Thus, there is inconsistency in the two dying declarations and the subsequent dying declaration shows that Walmik and others had reached the spot of offence when the incident was over. Nothing is brought on the record about the distance between the spot of offence and houses of these two eye witnesses. The Trial Court has not considered these circumstances and the Trial Court has believed both the eye witnesses. This Court holds that due the aforesaid inconsistencies in the dying declarations and the other circumstances, the two eye witnesses cannot be believed. Only during the cross examination of Walmik

¶41

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶42

¶43

(PW No. 6), it is brought on the record that the name of Amin was taken by deceased and motive was told to him by deceased on the spot. Thus, it is not the case of both the eye witnesses that to them, any disclosure was made by Pandit before shifting him to the hospital. On the other hand, the evidence in cross examination of the two witnesses and the contents of spot panchanama, show that many other persons must have witnessed the incident as there are shops and houses in the vicinity of the spot. The prosecution has not examined such witnesses and only the aforesaid two interested witnesses are examined. So, this Court holds that it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of aforesaid two so called eye witnesses.

¶44

If the evidence of the two eye witnesses is excluded, then there remains the evidence of two dying declarations. There is also some circumstantial evidence as against the appellant Nos. 1 to 3, who are brothers inter-se. In the first dying declaration, Exh. 79, the deceased disclosed that he had dispute with Amin Shah. The deceased also disclosed that present four appellants had come to him near S.T. stand and Amin had picked up a quarrel with him. The deceased disclosed that Amin gave blow of iron Asari on his head, Rashid gave blow of cycle chain on his abdomen and the remaining two accused gave stick blows on his

¶45

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶46

¶47

legs. As against the disclosures made in first dying declaration at Exh. 79, in the second dying declaration which is at Exh. 75 and which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Pandit did not take the name of appellant No. 4 Pandurang, as one of the assailants. In the second dying declaration, Pandit disclosed that on one motorcycle appellant Nos. 1 to 3 had came there and intercepted him and on other motorcycle two more persons like Umer Babu and Isha Babu had came there. Pandit disclosed that all these five persons assaulted him. He disclosed before Executive Magistrate that only after the arrival of his relatives, he realized that he was assaulted on his head by knife, he was assaulted on the other parts of the body with cycle chain, fists and kicks.

¶48

The evidence of Dr. Deosing (PW No. 11), who examined Pandit in Chalisgaon Hospital shows that before giving treatment to Pandit, three injuries were noticed on his body. There was one C.L.W. over head, one contusion over calf muscle and there was tenderness over left iliac region. The injury certificate at Exh. 81 prepared by Dr. Deosing is duly proved. The doctor has given evidence that the injury found on the head can be caused by iron rod and the other injuries can be caused by weapons like stick. Pandit was referred to Dhule Civil Hospital

¶49

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶50

¶51

from Chalisgaon Hospital.

¶52

Dr. Avinash (PW No. 4) conducted P.M. examination on the dead body of Pandit. Treatment was given in Dhule Civil Hospital to Pandit for 3-4 days before his death and so most of the injuries are described as sutured injuries etc. The evidence of Dr. Avinash shows that Pandit was treated for head injuries, injuries received at abdomen and also fracture injuries to left tibia upper 1/3rd. The doctor has deposed that brain was congested and oedematous, there was patch of penumonia over right lung and peritoneum and ileum were found sutured. Doctor has deposed that the cause of death was due to complication following tear of intestine and such tear can be caused due to forceful blow on abdomen. Doctor has deposed that due to injury to intestine, puss was formed in peritoneal cavity and due to that septicemia was developed. In the cross examination, the doctor has admitted that there is possibility that death took place due to negligence shown in medical treatment i.e. not giving proper treatment in respect of puss which was found in peritoneum.

¶53

The medical evidence shows that hardly three injuries were caused to Pandit. The Injury to abdomen was caused by blunt weapon and that injury proved to be fatal. The evidence of

¶54

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶55

¶56

two dying declarations, which can be considered under section 32 of the Evidence Act, is not consistent with each other, so far as the involvement of accused Pandurang in the offence is concerned. When there are more dying declarations, each dying declaration need to be considered separately and it becomes duty of the Court to find out, whether the other evidence is consistent with the dying declarations. If the other evidence is consistent with one dying declaration, that dying declaration can be safely accepted and relied upon and other dying declaration can be discarded.

¶57

The facts and circumstances of this case show that there is a possibility that not many persons were involved in the assault made on Pandit. The circumstances like absence of name of Pandurang in second dying declaration, which was recorded by Executive Magistrate, needs to be given due weight. Though one injury was found on the person of Pandurang, it is not the case of prosecution that the injury was sustained during incident. He sustained a fracture injury and his leg from foot portion to thigh portion was in plaster caste. This injury is not explained. In view of the inconsistencies in the two dying declarations and aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that reasonable doubt is created about the case of the prosecution that Pandurang was also

¶58

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶59

¶60

involved in that act.

¶61

Tarachand (PW No. 1) is examined to prove the recovery of a stick, which was done on the basis of statements given by Pandurang. Umesh (PW No. 2 ), a panch witness of arrest pachanama in respect of arrest of Pandurang, is examined and the arrest panchanama is proved as Exh. 42. This evidence shows that one leg of Pandurang was in plaster caste and considerable portion of this leg was under plaster caste. This circumstance cannot be called as incriminating circumstance. Thus, there is no circumstantial check to the disclosure made in the first dying declaration that Pandurang had also assaulted the deceased.

¶62

In the evidence of Tarachand (PW No. 1), the spot panchanama dated 17.8.1998 is proved. Blood was present on the spot. The spot is described in both the dying declarations and the panchanama is consistent with the spot described in the dying declarations. The panch witness examined on the seizure of clothes of accused Nos. 1 to 3 has turned hostile, but the panchanamas of seizure of clothes of accused Nos. 1 to 3 are duly proved in evidence of P.S.I. Kshirsagar (PW No. 8). The panchanama of seizure of clothes of Anwar Shah is at Exh. 69, the panchanama of seizure of clothes of Amin Shan is at Exh. 71 and

¶63

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶64

¶65

panchanma of seizure of clothes of Rashid is at Exh. 70. The evidence shows that these clothes were sent to C.A. Office. The C.A. report at Exh. 73 shows that blood was detected on the clothes of accused Nos. 1 to 3. They were arrested immediately after the incident. There is no reason to disbelieve P.W. 8. Thus, there is circumstantial check to the evidence of dying declaration, which is available as against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. Further, there was motive for accused Nos. 1 to 3 to commit such offence. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the evidence is sufficient as against accused Nos. 1 to 3 to prove that in furtherance of their common intention, they assaulted Pandit and they inflicted injuries on Pandit, which caused death.

¶66

The question arises, as to what offence is committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3. The Trial Court has held that the evidence of doctor, who conducted the P.M. examination, has created probability that the death took place due to medical negligence. The Trial Court has held that in view of such probability, the accused can be convicted only for offence punishable under section 325 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. It appears that the Trial Court has not considered the provisions of section 299 of I.P.C. Explanation (2) of section 299 runs as under :-

¶67

" Explanation 2 .- Where death is caused by

¶68

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶69

¶70

bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented."

¶71

Thus, for the accused, in such a case, defence is not available that if the proper treatment was given, the life of Pandit could have been saved. It is not open to them to show that there was negligence, there was no proper treatment and so they are not responsible for the death of Pandit. In view of this position of law, this Court holds that reasoning given by the Trial Court is not correct.

¶72

Though it can be said that the reasoning given by the Trial Court for holding that the accused are not guilty of the offence of homicide is not correct, it was necessary for prosecution to prove that the ingredients of offence of culpable homicide or murder are made out. Even if both the dying declarations are accepted as they are, only one thing can be made out from the two dying declarations that rival of the deceased and the two brothers of the rival had intention to teach lesson by giving beating to Pandit. The evidence shows that hard and blunt objects were used and the injuries inflicted by such

¶73

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶74

¶75

weapons caused the death. The injury caused to the intestine endangered life and further, fracture of left tibia was caused. This Court holds that the evidence shows that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had voluntarily caused hurt to Pandit. As grievous hurt was caused, they are liable to be dealt with under section 325 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The ingredients of offence described in section 299 or the offence described in section 300 of I.P.C. are absent in this case. So this Court holds that prosecution has proved the case as against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under section 325 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.

¶76

Hearing was given to the advocate of the appellants on the point of sentence also. Only one year of imprisonment is given and it is not on higher side. In view of this circumstance, this Court holds that no interference is possible in the order of the Trial Court on the point of quantum of sentence also.

¶77

For the appellants three reported cases were cited.

¶78

(i) AIR 1987 SC 2023 (Amar Sing and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab),

¶79

(ii) 1993 Cri.L.J. 1053 (Pashora Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab), and

¶80

(iii) 1995 Cri.L.J. 1445 (E.K. Chandrasenan Vs. State of Kerala).

¶81

Cri. Appeal No. 149/2000

¶82

¶83

The cases are on the point of power of the Appellate Court. The other points discussed in the reported cases are not involved in the present case. So the following order.

¶84

O R D E R

¶85

1] The appeal of appellant no. 4 Pandurang Kashinath Kamble is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence given against him in Sessions Case No. 238/1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 11/02/2000, is hereby quashed and set aside and he stands acquitted of offence punishable u/s. 325 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.

¶86

2] Appeal of appellant nos. 1 to 3 Anwar, Amin and Rashid stands dismissed.

¶87

3] Appellants 1 to 3 are to surrender to their bail bonds.

¶88

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶89

ssc/

Anwarshah Babushah Fakir and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwarshah Babushah Fakir and Ors. 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

Subhash Babu Kale Vs the State of Mah

Bharat Munga Vasave Vs the State of Mah

Jilaniya Janglya Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaifulla Daulat Shaikh Vs the State of Mah

Gaus Nisar Shaikh Vs the State of Mah

Pramod Hanumantrao Pusarekar Vs the State of Mah