SAKHARAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against a judgment of the High court of Bombay, Nagpur bench, summarily dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant Sakharam against his conviction and sentences of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and 3 months R. I. for offences punishable under S. 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code respectively awarded to him in a Sessions trial by the Sessions Judge of Yeotmal. With this appellant were arrays four other persons who were convicted for an offence under Section 147, Indian penal code, only and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The prosecution case, which the Sessions Judge held to be proved, was that, on 5/09/1967, Shamrao, who was accused No. 2 with the appellant in the Sessions trial, went to the hotel of one Kashinath alias natha, son of Dayaram, at about noon with a bottle of liquor and demanded glasses for drinking liquor inside the hotel. Kashinath as well as his servant rangnath refused to comply with his request. Shamrao felt aggrieved, abused both of them, and gave a threat to Kashinath. Next day, on 6/09/1967; in the evening, the appellant, who was accused No. 1, Shamrao and two others went to the hotel of Kashinath's father Dayaram and abused kashinath in his absence. They also gave threats saying that they would cut Kashinath to pieces. Later) still in the evening at about 8.30 or 9 p. m. , Kashinath happend to be near the State Bank square on Dhamangaon Road in the company of his servant Rangnath and two others persons Ramnath and Vishwanath. They were going towards Mahadeo Temple beyond the Post Office. Rangnath was walking ahead, while the other three were behind him at a short distance. Theappellant, who was concealing himself in the shadow of a 'neem' three, suddenly rushed out and with a sharp-edged weapon stabbed Rangnath in the abdomen. Rangnath cried aloud, whereupon his three companions kashinath, Vishwanath and Ramnath tried to go to his rescue. The appellants then called out to his associates who were armed with sticks and, as a result 10 or 12 persons, including the four other accused who were arrayed with the appellant in the Sessions Trial, arrived and tried to assault the companions of Rangnath. The three companions of Rangnath ran away. Rangnath received a serious injury in the abdomen and his intestinal loops came out of that injury. The appellant and his companions ran away after inflicting this injury on Rangnath. Rangnath walked for a short distance and was then carried by two truck drivers to a hut near the cotton market. One of those drivers Vishwanath Kute informed the police on the telephone that a person was lying injured there. The police arrived with a vehicle, took Rangnath to the Main Hospital at Yeotmal where Rangnath's statement was recorded by the police Sub-Inspector. A case was registered. Rangnath's condition was serious and, hence, his dying declaration was recorded by the Taluq Magistrate. He was first examined by Dr. Bhoot and was, later, operated upon by Dr. Gogate. He remained in the hospital until the 4/10/1967 when he was discharged. The injury received by rangnath was found by the doctors to be a dangerous one which, in their opinion, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was only fortunate that Rangnath received immediate treatment and survived.

(3.) The Sessions Judge discussed the entire prosecution evidence which was produced before him in support of this case and, believing the evidence given by the prosecution, held that the appellant was clearly guilty of an attempt to commit the murder of Rangnath and that he had also taken part in a riot while he was armed with a dangerous sharp-edged weapon. Consequently, he convicted the appellant as mentioned above. When the appellant appealed to the High court, the High court dismissed the appeal summarily. This court granted special leave to appeal to the appellant against this order of the High court, limited to the question that the High court was not justified in dismissing the appeal summarily. In these circumstances, the arguments that have been advanced before us in this appeal have not been concerned so much with the merits of the conviction of the appellant, but with the question whether it was a fit case where the High court should not have dismissed the appeal summarily, should have sent for the record, and written a full-reasoned Judgment if the High court was of the opinion that the appeal could not succeed.