NARAYAN NATHU NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Narayan Nathu Naik who was tried by the Sessions Judge, Thana for the murder of one Rattan on the night following 18th March, 1966 at about midnight. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. His appeal to the High Court was summarily dismissed although the High Court recorded a brief note of the arguments which were raised before it and the replies to those arguments repelling them. It is contended in this case that the appellant was entitled to at least one appeal and that his first appeal should have been properly considered in the High Court and the judgment of the High Court, which according to the learned counsel, reads like a dialogue between the court and counsel, is no judgment at all. It appears that special leave was probably granted in this case, because of the unsatisfactory manner in which reasons were recorded. The High Court need not have recorded reasons if it was satisfied that the case was one for dismissal but if it thought that it had to go into the evidence and to discuss it, the proper course would have been to set the case down for a proper hearing and to give a considered judgment in the case. We have considered the case on the evidence brought against the appellant and we are satisfied that the appeal must fail. We give our reasons briefly.

(2.) There is some evidence that the appellant Narayan Nathu Naik and the deceased Rattan had some quarrel over property. This, it is contended, was somewhat old and not very serious and that nothing untoward had happened, for the appellant to have suddenly embarked upon the murder of Rattan. We need not consider the question of motive in this case if we are satisfied that the evidence that Narayan Nathu Naik was the assailant of Rattan, is acceptable. The Medical evidence showed that Rattan died of a single injury which was a stab wound through the heart. The left ventricle was cut and the heart was drained of all blood. The pericardium had also a tear but on its upper reach and the evidence of the doctor who performed the autopsy shows that the pericardium was full of blood. The clothes of the deceased were also profusely stained but no blood was found inside the house where the deceased was first sleeping, but some blood was found at the Ota where the dead body was found but the source of the blood could not be identified. From this the learned counsel raised the contention that the scene of offence was probably not what the prosecution case described and his contention is wound up with the rest of the story given by the eye-witnesses particularly the wife who named the appellant as they have admitted facts in support of the prosecution case.

(3.) On the day in question, the deceased Rattan had gone to make some purchases. At night he had not returned when the family took their meals and lay down to sleep. In the house at that time were Rattan's mother, Rattan's wife and Rattan's brother. There were three students who had come to this house and were staying there to appear at the S.S.L.C. examination. The family distributed themselves as follows. Inside the house Rattan's wife lay down on the ground on a bed with her infant child. The bed for Rattan was made on a swing nearby. A lantern was burning and the door of the house was open. Rattan returned at about 10 P. M, in the night. As food had been taken by the rest of the family, a portion was set apart for Rattan. According to his wife, Vimalabai, he took his meals without waking her up and after he had washed his hands, he threw some water on her face which woke her up. He then lay down on the swing to sleep. Vimalabai says that she also lay down to sleep and presumably she must have slept, because she says that she was waken up in the middle of the night by shouts from her husband. Vimalabai's evidence is that when she woke up, she found that her husband was in the grip of the appellant Narayan Nathu Naik at the door near the Ota. Rattan's brother Kamlakar who had also been awakened by the shouts of the deceased also arrived there, but the appellant had stabbed Rattan. Kamlakar caught hold of the appellant from behind around his waist, but when Rattan fell on the ground the appellant broke loose and ran away. On their shouting and wailing, Jairam the uncle of Rattan (P. W. 1.) and two other brothers of Rattan came on the scene. They were living at a distance of about 1 1/2 furlongs from the house of Rattan. Rattan is said to have spoken to his mother before he died that it was Narayan Nathu Naik who had attacked him. The evidence is that it was Narayan Nathu Naik and this is borne out by the statements of Kamlakar (P. W. 3) , Manibai (P. W. 4) and Vimalabai (P. W. 5) . The two students who were also witnesses in the case made a statement before the police involving Narayan Nathu Naik, but they later changed in the court and were declared hostile and cross-examined. We shall refer hereafter to their testimony in so far as they have admitted facts in support of the prosecution case.