SANJAY UDAHHAV SONAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals filed under Sections 374(2) of Cr.P.C. are directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 63/2000 by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge on 22nd July, 2003 and the three accused have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC. Criminal Appeal No.958/2003 has been filed by accused nos.l and 2 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1129/2003 has been filed by accused no.3. Accused Nos.l and 2 came to be released on bail whereas similar prayer of accused no.3 was turned down by this Court and therefore, he continues to be in jail.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, accused no.l Sanjay Sonawane is running "Classic Motor Driving School" and accused nos.2 and 3 were his employees at the relevant time. On 12th October, 1999, one Shrikant @ Baba Chandrakant Shirke, who was an absconding accused in a complaint filed by accused no.l, had come to his house at 489 Centre Street, Opposite Bhimpura Galli and few hundred metres away from his house, he was assaulted on the Centre Street by the accused at about 9.45 p.m. with hocky sticks and sharp weapon (knife) (Article 14). This incident was seen by PW11 Mahadeo Mali. Police Constable and PW 9 D. Y. Temgire, Police Constable, who were specifically deputed by PW 8 Ganesh Katke, duty ammaldar, at the police chowky, so as to take the deceased in custody as he was reported to be absconding for more than six months and this intimation was given to the police chowky by PW 6 PC Shirke, the brother of the deceased. PW 11 Mahadeo Mali noticed that the victim was lying on the road with bleeding injuries and there was a mob surrounding. The victim was taken in the rickshaw to the police station and from there to the Sassoon Hospital where he was declared dead by the Doctor on duty around 10.30 p.m. PW 11 Mahadeo Mali claimed to have caught hold of accused no.l and taken him to the Charbavadi police chowky where he was arrested. PW 18 Raghunath Pohekar reached the hospital and the complaint of PW 4 Vijay Shirke, another brother of the deceased, was recorded on the basis of which the FIR came to be registered (Exhibit 36). Inquest Panchnama (Exhibit 9), Spot Panchnama at Exhibit 14 and Seizure Panchnama (Exhibit 17) were made. The- dead body was sent for post mortem and PW 10 Dr.Milind Wable conducted it and signed the post mortem notes at Exhibit 46. Accused Nos.2 and 3 came to be arrested on the next date i.e. on 13th October, 1999 and accused no.3 purportedly made some disclosure statements based on which the knife (Article 14) was recovered. Two hocky sticks (Article 6 and 7) (one broken) were also claimed to have been recovered from the spot on 13th October, 1999 under recovery panchnama (Exhibit 69). As per the post mortem report, Shrikant died due to traumatic and haemorrhage shock as a result of stab injury. Investigation was done by PW 18 and he submitted the charge-sheet. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it came to be committed and the charge was framed at Exhibit 3 on 30th November, 2000.

(3.) The prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses and PW 8 Ganesh Katke, PW 9 DY Temgire, PW 11 Mahadeo Mali and PW 18 Raghunath Pohekar were the police personnel. PW 1 Zubeart Bringanda s/o. Tingo Bringanda, PW 2 S.M. Pawse, PW 3 Pandurang Chorge, PW 12 Bharat Parmar, PW 13 Ashok Deshmukh, PW 14 Vinayak Ugral, PW 15 Paul James and PW 17 Bhagat Tour were the parich witnesses. However, PW 1, PW 3, PW 9 (Police Constable), PW 12, PW 13,PW 14andPW 15 turned hostile. PW 16 Nishan Kamble was the witness examined to prove the purported extra judicial confession made to him by accused no.2 but he also turned hostile. The prosecution case was mainly based on the evidence of the eye witnesses viz. PW 5 Mrs.V.C. Shirke, mother of the deceased, PW 6 PC Shirke, brother of the deceased, PW 7 Sandhy a Kale, sister of the deceased, in addition to the two police constables viz. PW 9 and PW 11. But as noted earlier, PW 9 turned hostile and did not support , the prosecution case and thus, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of the remaining four eye witnesses PW 5, PW 6, PW 7 and PW 11 Mahadeo Mali. Inquest Panchnama at Exhibit 9 was admitted.