State filed criminal appeal challenging acquittal of nine accused in murder and IPC offences. High Court dismissed appeal, upholding benefit of doubt given by trial court due to lack of corroborative evidence.
Acquittal of respondents upheld; appeal dismissed; bail bonds of all respondents cancelled.
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.
274.02cra
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.274 OF 2002
The |
State of Maharashtra..APPELLANT |
|---|---|
VERSUS |
|
1. |
Madan Manik Dalwale,Age: 21 years, |
2. |
Raju Mani Dalwale,Age: 33 years, |
3. |
Baban Mahadu Pawar, |
Age: 57 years, |
|
(Appeal abated against |
|
R.No. 2 & 3 as per Hon'ble |
|
Court order dt. 24/11/17) |
|
4. |
Manik Motiram Dalwale,Age: 65 years, |
5. |
Kantilal Manik Dalwale, |
Age: 18 years, |
|
6. |
Rajendra Baburao Ogale, |
Age: 24 years, |
|
7. |
Bhagwat Baburao Ogale, |
Age: 28 years, |
|
8. |
Rajendra Namdeo Marathe,Age: 40 years, |
9. |
Motilal Bhaidas Pawar,Age: 40 years, |
Accused Nos. 1 to 5 |
|
R/o. Vadjai Road, Shivaji |
274.02cra
(2)
Nager, Dhule & Accused
Nos. 6 to 9 R/o. Shivaji
Nagar Lane No.1, Dhule...RESPONDENTS
Mr V.S. Badakh, A.P.P for appellant;
Mr. M.R. Wagh, Advocate h/f Mr P.S. Paranjape,
Advocate for respondents
DATE: 14th DECEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT : [ PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
The appeal is filed by the State to
challenge the judgment and order of learned 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case
No. 2 of 1999. The trial Court has acquitted the
respondents of the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 323 read with Section 149, 147, 148
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the
Bombay Police Act.
2.Both sides are heard.
3.In short, the facts leading to the
institution of present proceedings can be stated as
follows :
274.02cra
(3)
Deceased Navnath was resident of
Shivajinagar, Dhule. He was earning livelihood by
plying auto-rickshaw. All the respondents are
resident of Shivajinagar, Dhule.
4.The incident in question took place on
01/08/1998 at about 7-00 p.m. The deceased Navnath
was present with his auto-rickshaw at rickshaw stop
situated in Shivajinagar locality near cross road
having width of 80 feet. At that time, accused
No.1 Madan, accused No.2 Raju, accused No.3 Baban,
accused No. 4 Manik, sons of Manik and accused No.7
Bhagwat Ogle and Baban Pawar, who are related as
son-in-law to Manik came towards deceased and they
were 15 to 20 persons. These 15 to 20 persons
virtually dragged deceased towards house of Madan,
accused No.1 and there they started assaulting
deceased with sword, axe, stick, iron bar etc. He
was assaulted on his legs and on his head. When
the assault on Navnath was going on, his wife
Vandanabai learnt about assault and she rushed
274.02cra (4)
towards house of Madan, son of Manik. She heard
that beating was being given to the deceased inside
of the house. One more witness, nephew of deceased
also rushed to the spot and he also heard that
beating was being given to Navnath in the house of
Manik. In their presence, Navnath was virtually
thrown out of the house. Then by using hands,
assault was made on Vandanabai also and threat of
life was given to her.
5.On the spot, the deceased disclosed to his
wife that he was assaulted by using aforesaid
weapons. Vandanabai and deceased were shifted to
Civil Hospital, Dhule in rickshaw by the persons
like Hari Jagtap and Latabai Suryawanshi, residents
of Shivajinagar. The statement of Navnath came to
be recorded by police in Civil Hospital. On the
basis of that statement, crime at C.R. No. 133 of
1998 came to be registered for offence punishable
under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code and for other offences. Then
supplementary statement of Navnath was recorded on
274.02cra
(5)
01/08/1998. Navnath died in Civil Hospital on
03/08/1998.
6.During the course of investigation,
panchnama of house of accused Nos. 1,2 and 4, where
the incident had allegedly taken place, was
prepared and panchnama of spot, where Navnath was
lying in injured condition, was also prepared.
Nothing was found inside the house like blood
stains and blood was not found on the road where
Navnath was thrown. It was rainy season.
7.When Navnath was admitted in Civil
Hospital, injury certificate was prepared and after
his death, post mortem came to be conducted on the
dead body. Navnath died mainly due to head injury
though he had sustained fracture injuries like
fracture of tibia fibula right side middle third.
Head injury had caused haematoma on parital region
of scalp and there was also subdural haematoma on
left temporoparital region with subarachnoid
haemorrhage.
274.02cra
(6)
8. During the course of investigation,
accused No.1 gave statement to the police in
presence of panch witness about axe used as weapon.
Memorandum statement was prepared and then as per
information, accused No.1 produced axe before the
police. Blood was found on the axe. In similar
manner, iron bar was recovered from accused No.9
and sword was recovered from accused No.3. There
was blood on iron bar and also on sword. These
articles came to be seized under panchnama. The
articles were sent to chemical analyzer's office.
The blood was detected on axe and sword. After
completion of investigation, police filed charge
sheet against the respondents, 9 persons.
9.The charge was framed for aforesaid
offences and plea was recorded. All the accused
pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined
in all 19 witnesses. When the statements under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were
recorded, all the accused took defence of total
(7)
denial. The trial Court has not believed the
witnesses examined and also evidence given on
recorded dying declaration and oral dying
declaration.
10.The prosecution was relying mainly on
recorded dying declaration, which is proved in the
evidence of Bhimrao (PW-12), who was attached to
Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule. He has given
evidence that on 01/08/1998 he was informed about
the incident at 6-30 p.m. and he was asked to go to
Civil Hospital, where Navnath was admitted. He has
given evidence that he visited Civil Hospital and
he obtained certificate regarding fitness of
Navnath from Medical Officer, Civil Hospital and
then he recorded statement of Navnath. The
statement of Navnath, dying declaration is proved
at Exhibit-93. He had obtained thumb impression of
Vandanabai on the said statement in token of the
receipt of the copy the said statement. He has
given evidence that when he recorded statement,
Doctor, who had given opinion, was present by the
274.02cra
(8)
side of patient and endorsement of Doctor,
regarding fitness of patient was obtained on the
dying declaration. There is endorsement as
follows :
“Conscious to give statement”
Time of recording is mentioned as 7-30
p.m. to 8-00 p.m. In the dying declaration,
deceased disclosed against 15 to 20 persons
including Madan, Raju, sons of Madan, two sons-in-
law of Madan and Baban Pawar. He disclosed that
all of them were holding sword, stick, iron bars
and axe. He disclosed that he was assaulted by
using aforesaid weapons and assault was made,
particularly on head and legs and then he was
thrown out of house of Madan by those persons. He
disclosed that after he was thrown out, his wife
Vandanabai came there but she was also assaulted by
using hands by these 15 to 20 persons. The
supplementary statement is, however, not proved by
prosecution.
274.02cra
(9)
11.The main witness of prosecution is
Vandanabai (PW-8), widow of deceased. She has
given evidence that at about 7-00 p.m. when she was
present in the house, she learnt about the incident
and she ran towards the house of Manik Dalwale,
accused No.4. She has deposed that her sister in
law Latabai and mother in law Sunderabai had also
gone there with her. She has given evidence that
when they questioned accused No.2 Raju, as to why
they had assaulted deceased, accused Nos. 1 and 2
assaulted her by using hands. She has deposed that
she then made inquiry with her husband and husband
told that accused No.1 Madan had assaulted him on
his head by using axe, accused No.9 Motilal had
assaulted him by using iron bar, accused No.2 Raju
and accused No.4 Manik were holding sticks and
sword, accused No.3 Baban, accused No.5 Kantilal,
accused No.6 Rajendra, accused No.7 Bhagwat,
accused No.8 Rajendra Marathe were in company of
Manik and they had also assaulted him.
274.02cra
(10)
12.The widow of deceased (PW-8) has given
evidence that Hari Marathe shifted them to Civil
Hospital by auto-rickshaw. She has given evidence
that she was examined in Civil Hospital, as she had
also sustained injuries.
13.Yogesh (PW-9), who is nephew of deceased
has given evidence that at the relevant time, he
was present on the spot by chance and he saw that
accused Nos. 1 to 9 had gathered there, they
assaulted him and then took him to the house of
accused No.4 by dragging him. He has given
evidence that he rushed to the house of Latabai,
sister of deceased and narrated the incident and
then he went to the house of accused No.4. He has
deposed that while standing outside, he had
requested assailants not to assault Navnath and
then Navnath was virtually thrown out of the house
after giving him beating. He has deposed that
Navnath had sustained bleeding injuries and from
that place, they shifted him to Civil Hospital. He
has given evidence that when at the place of
274.02cra (11)
incident, widow of Navnath made inquiry with
accused No.1 Madan as to why they had assaulted
Navnath, they gave beating to Vandanabai also by
hands.
14.The aforesaid evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 if
compared together, it can be said that even when
Yogesh (PW-9) has deposed that he rushed to the
spot first and he was there when Vandanabai (PW-8)
was questioning the accused as to why they had
assaulted deceased, Yogesh has not given evidence
that in his presence, deceased disclosed incident
to Vandanabai. In ordinary course, the male
persons take lead in shifting injured to the Civil
Hospital. The other witness Hari, who had driven
auto-rickshaw to Civil Hospital had turned hostile
and there is only evidence of Vandanabai of
aforesaid nature. These circumstances are
important as there is serious doubt about the
fitness or consciousness of the deceased, when he
allegedly made disclosure. Further, there is
apparent inconsistency in the evidence given on
274.02cra (12)
oral dying declaration and evidence of written
dying declaration. When in Civil Hospital, the
deceased could not disclose particulars of incident
to the police, as per Vandanabai (PW-8),
particulars of the part played by the accused
persons was disclosed to her by Navnath.
15.The spot panchnama, which is at Exhibit-
67, is proved in the evidence of panch witness
Hemraj (PW-1). PW-1 has given evidence that the
panchnama bears his signature. There was no reason
for accused persons to seriously dispute the
contents of spot panchnama. The document shows that
the panchnama was prepared on 01/08/1998 itself
between 9-00 p.m. and 9-30 p.m. The spot was shown
by Vandanabai (PW-8). The police and panchas had
inspected the house, where allegedly assault was
made. Inside the house, some articles were found
in scattered condition, which were kitchen
articles. One mirror was also found in broken
condition but there was not a single blood stain
inside the house. The police and panchas had
(13)
carefully inspected the entire portion. Then they
inspected open space situated in front of house of
Manik but there also no blood was detected. In the
panchnama, it is mentioned that due to rain, road
had become wet. In view of the circumstance that
panchnama was prepared immediately, in ordinary
course, police would have noticed some blood. Many
bleeding injuries were found on the dead body and
that can be seen in the evidence of Doctor, who
conducted post mortem examination and prepared post
mortem report. Thus, the document of spot panchnama
is not corroborating the aforesaid evidence given
by the so called eye witnesses and also contents of
dying declaration.
16.The prosecution has proved injury
certificate, which was prepared after admission of
Navnath in Civil Hospital in the evidence of Dr.
Arjun (PW-10). He found following injuries on the
person of injured:-
1. C.L.W. 1/2” x 1/4” x muscle deep Rt. Knee.
2.C.L.W. 1/2” x 1/4” x muscle deep vertical – one
inch below knee.
(14)
274.02cra
3. C.L.W. 3/4” x 1/4” x muscle deep 2” inch below injury no.2 over right leg.
4.C.L.W. 1/2” x 1/4” x muscle deep - one inch below
the injury no.3 over right leg.
5. C.L.W. - 3/4” x 1/4” x by muscle deep - 1” below injury no.4 over right leg.
6.C.L.W. 3/4” x 1/4” x skin deep left mid shin left
leg.
7.C.L.W. 1/2” x 1/4” x skin deep -1” below injury
no.6 leftleg.
8.C.L.W. - 3/4” x 1/4” skin deep -1” below injury
no.7 left leg.
9. C.L.W. - 4” x linear x skin deep over left parietal occipital region of the head.
10.C.L.W. 1/2” x 1/4” x skin deep over left wrist
bleeding present.
11.Abrasion - 3/4” x 1/4” over right face.
17.Dr. Arjun (PW-10) is the same Medical
Officer, who had endorsed regarding fitness of Navnath
for giving statement and he has given the evidence on
that endorsement also by saying that the patient was
conscious at the relevant time. The injury certificate
prepared by Doctor is proved as Exhibit-86 and this
document is consistent with oral evidence of Doctor.
18.Dr. Patil (PW-11) conducted examination of
dead body of Navnath on 03/08/1998 between 16.45 hours
274.02cra
(15)
and 18.15 hours. Doctor found following injuries on
the dead body.
1.Sutured wound on left parieto-occipital region 9.8
cm. in length (on removing sutures 9.8 cm. X 0.4 cm x
scalp deep. Hair shaved around the injury.
2.Contusion over right side of back, i.e. right
scapular region 7.8 cm x 1.8 cm., reddish black in
colour.
3. Abrasion below injury No.2, 4.8 cm. X 2 cm. reddish in colour
4.Minute abrasions over face (forehead and right
cheek), left wrist, left palm.
5. Stitched wound on right knee 1.6 cm. (on removing stitches, muscle deep)
6.Stitched wound below right knee, vertical 1.8 cm,
in length (on removing stitches, muscle deep)
7. Stitched wound on right leg, below injury no.6, 2.1 cm in length (on removing stitches, muscle deep)
8. Stitched wound on right leg below injury no. 7, 1.5 cm in length (on removing stitches, muscle deep).
9. Stitched wound on right leg below injury no. 8, 2.1 cm in length (on removing stitches, muscle deep).
10.Stitched wound on left shin of the junction of
upper 1/3 and lower 2/3, 2.1 cm in length.
11. Stitched wound on left shin below injury no.10, 1.6 cm in length.
12. Stitched wound on left shin below injury no.11, 2.1 cm in length.
13.Stitched wound on left shin below injury no.12,
1.9 cm in length (on removing stitches of injury no.
10,11,12,13 skin deep).
274.02cra
(16)
19.Dr. Patil (PW-11) has given evidence that all
aforesaid injuries were ante mortem in nature. His
evidence shows that injuries caused fracture of tibia
fibula right side middle 1/3. On internal examination,
he found haematoma at parital region of scalp, subdural
haematoma on left temporroparietal region and subdural
haematoma. Both cerebral hemispheres were oedematous.
Lungs were congested, stomach was empty, stomach
muscosa healthy. Doctor gave opinion that death took
place due to head injury and fracture injury to right
leg also contributed in the cause of death. Post mortem
report at Exhibit-91 prepared by him is consistent with
his oral evidence. He gave evidence that the aforesaid
injuries can be caused by blunt side of weapon like axe
and sword and such injuries can be caused by iron rod,
thus, by hard and blunt object.
20.The medical evidence given in the present
matter needs to be kept in mind before appreciation of
evidence given on dying declaration. There was serious
head injury. The Medical Officer, who gave opinion on
the fitness of Navnath, when Police Officer recorded
statement did not know about haemorrhage in brain. The
case paper in respect of deceased, which must have been
274.02cra (17)
prepared by Civil Hospital is not produced. When
deceased was admitted on 01/08/1998 and he died on
03/08/1998, if he was really fit, in ordinary course,
police would have made attempt to get recorded
statement of deceased through Executive Magistrate.
Though it is not trite law that dying declaration
recorded by Executive Magistrate only can be relied
upon, when there are circumstances like found in the
present case, the Court needs to consider circumstances
and it was necessary for the prosecution to explain the
things. The case paper is not produced and there is no
explanation as to why the statement was not got
recorded through Executive Magistrate. Further, Doctor
gave opinion only to effect that the patient was
conscious. Though satisfaction of person who recorded
the statement should have been considered by this
Court, the Police Officer, who recorded the statement
could not given evidence that he himself got satisfied
that the patient was fit and that was done by him after
putting some questions. Due to all these
circumstances, this Court holds that so called recorded
dying declaration is surrounded by suspicious
circumstance. Similarly, the evidence given by widow of
the deceased (PW-8) on oral dying declaration cannot be
274.02cra (18)
believed for the same reason and also for the reason
that it is not consistent with the recorded dying
declaration. The eye witnesses also cannot be believed
as they have not given evidence that they had seen 15
to 20 persons involved in the incident of assault.
There is no corroborative evidence of spot panchnama to
show that the incident really took place in the house
of accused No.4 or in front of house of accused No.4.
Further, there is medical opinion that only hard and
blunt object could have caused injuries and that
opinion is not consistent with the evidence given by
this witness and contents of the dying declaration.
There is no mention in dying declaration that weapons
were used from blunt side.
21.The aforesaid discussion shows that probably,
the widow of deceased and other eye witnesses had no
opportunity to see the incident. Due to some reason,
they gave names of present respondents. However, the
evidence on record does not show that there was
previous enmity between the deceased and any of the
accused persons. It can be said that probably, some
incident took place in the house of accused No.4 Manik,
but in that incident, damage was caused to house hold
274.02cra (19)
articles of Manik. No inference is possible that in
the house of Manik, the deceased was assaulted by using
such weapons and bleeding injuries as mentioned above
were inflicted to the deceased.
22.The trial Court has considered all aforesaid
circumstances and benefit of doubt is given to the
accused persons.
23.During argument, learned Counsel for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that they are dead,
as per his information. It appears that abatement
order is already passed in respect of these
respondents. It is not possible to interfere in the
decision given in favour of remaining respondents.
24.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
Bail bonds of all respondents stand cancelled.
(S.M. GAVHANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
Tupe
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal of respondents by the trial court in a murder and abetment by unlawful assembly case.
State of Maharashtra
Madan Manik Dalwale
Raju Mani Dalwale
Baban Mahadu Pawar
Manik Motiram Dalwale
Kantilal Manik Dalwale
T.V. Nalawade
S.M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court