Criminal appeal against murder conviction. The High Court rejected submissions suggesting single-witness evidence was unreliable and recovery was flawed. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Impugned judgment and sentence confirmed; appeals dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Sherla V.
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.579 OF 2014
Rohit Mohan Dhoka r/at: 204, Nana Peth, Hindmata Chowk Vithal Niwas, Kirad Wada, Pune ... Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.293 OF 2014
Sachin @ Surya Vittal Bhujbal C/16703, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune ... Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr.Debjyoti Talukdar for the Appellant in Apeal/579/2014 Mr.Abhaykumar Apte, advocate appointed for Appellant in Apeal/293/2014 Mrs.A.S. Pai, APP, for State
CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE: JUNE 22, 2016
ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.):
No.1 and Appeal No.293 of 2014 is filed by Sachin Bhujbal, original accused No.2. The appeals are directed against the judgment and order
1 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
dated 1.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, thereby convicting both the appellants for the offence of murder under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each or suffer R.I. For six months. One Kavita Anil Salunke is the informant. The incident of murder of her husband Anil Salunkhe has taken place on 11.4.2011 near Race Course Empress Garden, Pune. One month prior to the date of the incident, the deceased Anil had hired the rickshaw of Sachin, i.e., the accused No.2 on rental basis. A charge of Rs.150/- per shift was agreed between them. However, this arrangement could not be worked out as the accused No.2 used to pursue him for the money and, therefore, the deceased returned the said rickshaw four days prior to the incident to the accused No.2. However, an amount of Rs.600/was due to accused No.2. The deceased had promised him to return the said amount of Rs.600/- on 11.4.2014. On that day in the morning, accused No.2 arrived at the house of the deceased and demanded Rs.600/-. He abused him. Anil promised him to pay the money. At around 1.30pm, he told his wife that he is going out with Dhoka, accused No.1. However, he did not return home and at 9pm, she got information telephonically from one of the friends that her husband had met with an accident and has been admitted in Sassoon hospital. So, when she went there, she found one Manoj Dhamale, friend of her husband, present alongwith the police. Manoj is an eye witness to the incident. On that day,
2 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
at around 1.30pm, when he was plying his rickshaw, the accused No.1 and accused No.2 told Anil to come there and told him that they wanted to go out to take beer. Though he was reluctant, they all being friends, he took them to one bar. Except Manoj, they all had drinks. Thereafter, they travelled for some time. Then one other friend Gajanan Mule also accompanied them in rickshaw at Dhobalwadi Ghodpadi. The deceased and both the accused had consumed country liquor at 6.30pm. Manoj and Gajanan did not drink. Thereafter, when they were coming back, at the Race Course Road, accused No.2 Sachin asked him to stop the rickshaw. Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased alighted from the rickshaw and went towards the Race Course compound to relieve themselves. However, Manoj suddenly heard their quarrel and screams of Anil. So, Gajanan and Manoj went there and noticed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 both were assaulting Anil. When they came near him, they found Anil was lying in a pool of blood. Accused No.2 Sachin fled away towards Empress garden and accused No.1 ran towards the Race Course. At that time, the watchman of the Race Course apprehended him and Manoj informed the police. Thereafter, the other friend informed Kavita about the incident. Anil succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Pursuant to the information given by Kavita, offence was registered at C.R. No.76 of 2011 with Vanavadi police station under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police recorded statements of the witnesses, drew spot
3 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
panchanama. Accused No.2 was also arrested on the same day. On the next day, at the instance of both the accused, the police carried out discovery panchanama and they recovered choppers, which were the weapons used for the purpose of assault. The police also seized the clothes of the deceased and the accused and sent them for the report of C.A. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Pune and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
4 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
the Senior Police Inspector and Investigating Officer from Vanavdi police station.
5 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
from thorny bushes at Empress garden is false. Panchanama (exhibit 32 and 33) ought not to have been believed by the trial Court. The learned Counsel have pointed out that in the cross-examination the panch PW5 Namdev Kunjir has admitted that he acted as panch on 30 to 35 occasions and hence, he should not have been relied. Similarly, the evidence of PW6 Amjad Shaikh is another panch for this discovery panchanama at the instance of accused No.2 dated 12.5.2011, which is marked at exhibit 38.
6 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
and 33 is doubtful. It was submitted that the panchanama had taken place on 12.4.2011 in the afternoon. However, on the same day, the accused No.2 was produced before the Court at the time of remand in the afternoon. Therefore, considering the time gap, the discovery panchanama becomes doubtful. While assailing the evidence of PW3, the learned Counsel has submitted that he did not inform the police about the assault though he admitted the deceased in the hospital. He took Anil to the Sassoon hospital. The names of the accused were not disclosed as assailants in the hospital. Had he seen both the accused assaulting Anil, then the names of these two persons ought to have been mentioned at the time of admission of Anil Salunke in the hospital. Learned Counsel further argued that as per the evidence of PW3, he dialled 100 number and informed about the incident to the police. However, the prosecution did not produce any evidence through the police that they have received such information on 100 number. It is further argued that at the time of panchanama, articles i.e., weapons or clothes of the accused were not sealed with lac seal. The CA report is also not helpful to the prosecution.
1 2000 Cri.L.J. 1566
7 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
2 (2002) 10 SCC 236
8 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
incident, accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased Anil travelled together to different places and they consumed liquor throughout the day at different places. PW3 did not drink and the other person Gajanan Mule who joined them subsequently also did not drink on that day. However, till late evening, they were drinking and when they were returning near Empress Garden, accused No.2 wanted to relieve himself and, therefore, he stopped the rickshaw. Accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the deceased alighted from the rickshaw and went towards the Empress garden. Suddenly, he heard them quarreling and then, shouts of Anil. So, he and Gajanan rushed towards that side and they saw the accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting Anil with some weapon. As they arrived, accused Nos.1 and 2 started running. The deceased fell down and was badly injured. The clinching evidence that the prosecution has tendered in this matter is the testimony of PW4. Sanjay Akolkar, was working as a security guard at Race Course, Pune camp and when he was discharging his duty at Race Course, he heard one person lying at some distance from one auto rickshaw. He heard shouts for help. He noticed one person running towards him and so he and other two persons apprehended that person and took him towards the rickshaw and that was accused No.1. He has stated that two other persons were present and there was one injured who was lifted by them in the rickshaw. He has stated that two other persons arrived on the spot and PW4 handed over the person apprehended by him
9 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
to police. In the evidence of PW9 Shivaji Kanase, he has stated that on 11.4.2011, at around 11.45pm, accused No.1 was arrested and produced by the constable PW7 Gaikwad before him and the said crime was registered at around 11pm. Thus, the evidence of Sanjay Akolkar is very important. He is an independent witness and his presence being a security guard was natural. Accused No.1 was running away from the spot. His presence near the body of the deceased itself shows his connection with the incident of assault. Evidence of PW4 corroborate evidence of PW3 in all material particulars. Accused No.2 was not arrested on the spot. However, once the evidence of PW3 is believed, then the role of the appellant/accused No.2 is proved by the prosecution. PW1 Kavita has stated about the motive of accused No.2. The deceased was not assaulted with fist blows, kicks or any stone or wooden stick which was lying nearby for there would have been a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the accused. The injuries were incised and the weapon used for the assault were choppers by both the accused. This shows that the accused had planned to kill the deceased. Though Gajanan Mule would have been a witness supporting the evidence of PW3, the evidence of PW3 itself is found credible, cogent, consistent and reliable and, therefore, non-examination of Gajanan Mule has not weakened the case of the prosecution. The CA report discloses that the blood found on the chopper was human blood and the blood group was B group. The blood
10 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
group of the deceased was B group. At the time of discovery panchanama, one chopper was found at the Empress garden on the next day. The possibility that while running away, the accused had thrown or kept the weapon in the garden cannot be ruled out. Though the panch PW5 Kunjir has acted as panch on 30 to 35 times, that itself cannot discredit the witness.
11 / 12
apeal.579.2014+_(J).doc
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
12 / 12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence of the single eye witness PW3 is credible without the corroboration of the other eye witness Gajanan Mule.
Whether the recovery of the weapon without immediate lac sealing invalidates the recovery panchanama.
Whether the High Court can safely interfere with the conviction of accused not apprehended at the spot of the crime.
Rohit Mohan Dhoka
Sachin @ Surya Vittal Bhujbal
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. TAHILRAMANI
MRIDULA BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
