MACHHINDRA MARUTI SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the alleged commission of murder being an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that P.W. 4 Popatsingh, his wife, two daughters Lata and Pinky and Son deceased Sudam were all residing at Khodad in Taluka Junnar District Pune. The family used to earn its daily bread by manual labour. It owned a certai n number of donkeys. The appellant, who belongs to the Vaddar caste, also owned donkeys. There used to be quarrels between Popatsingh and his family on the one hand and the appellant on the other because of the donkeys getting mixed up or the appellant letting loose his donkeys, who used to damage the property of the villagers. The appellant has two wives, Shantabai and Ranjana, who were arraigned alongwith him as Accused Nos. 2 and 3. On the evening of 12.9.1989, Sudam had gone to the market place in Khodad for purchasing cigarettes. Here, there was a confrontation between the appellant and Sudam. The appellant inflicted a knife blow or blows on the person of Sudam. Sudam raised an alarm crying out that he had been stabbed by the appellant. Someone ran and informed Popatsingh of what had taken place. Popatsingh's daughters went running ahead of him and his wife. Popatsingh on reaching the spot was told by Sudam of the appellant having stabbed him with a knife. This information was also given by Sudam to Dr. Gholap who is examined as P.W. 3. Sandeep, Shrikant, Chandibai and Santosh who were near about heard Sudam say that he had been stabbed by the appellant. They further saw the appellant standing there with a knife and being taken away from the scene by one of his wives. Word of the occurrence was given at the Narayangaon Police Station. PSI Jadhav went to the Primary Health Centre at Narayangaon where Sudam had been brought. After obtaining Dr. Jagdale's permission and certificate, PSI Jadhav recorded the statemcntof Sudam which statement is at Ext. 28. Next morning Sudam passed away and his corpse was subjected to a post -mortem examination by Dr. Bude of the Sassoon Hospital at Pune. Dr. Bude's notes are at Ext. 26. Sudam's death, according to Dr Bude, was due to shock following the stab injuries. The appellant was arrested on 12.9.1989 under Ext. 10. The garments on his person were taken over. On 14.9.1989 he gave a statement about having concealed a knife at a certain place. The appellant's statement to this effect was recorded at Ext. 14. He led the police and the Panchas to the spot and from there brought out the knife which was attached under Ext. 15. The attached articles were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, which issued the certificate at Ext. 35. The investigation over, a charge -sheet came to be lodged against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of the police. The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses including those named above. Their testimony satisfied the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant was found guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Shantabai and Ranjana, who had been charge -sheeted alongwith the appellant, were acquitted. 3. Miss. Khot appointed to prosecute the appeal contends that there is no eye -witness to the crime which is highly improbable since the stabbing took place right in the market place when many persons musthave been present. As to the cries of the deceased and the dying declaration given by him, the same were discrepant and actuated by animosity which the prosecution admits to have soured relations between the two families. It is not possible for us to agree with this submission. A brief survey of the evidence will suffice to establish the overwhelming nature of the evidence indicating the guilt of the appellant. That there was bad blood between the two families, has been spoken of by Popatsingh. What exactly the reason for this was is not clear because the account given by Popatsingh seems to be incoherent. But that apart the witnesses who came on the spot immediately, are people from diverse realms who have no axe to grind against the appellant. The first of the witness to be examined on the subject is Dr. Gholap (P.W. 3) whose dispensary is in the neighbourhood of Belhekar's grocery shop. Two small girls came weeping to him and they must have been Lata and Pinky. Both spoke of their brother having been assaulted coupled with a   request that the doctor accompany them. The doctor went with them to the platform of Belhekar's shop. The injured lay with his intestine protruding. The injury was bleeding profusely. When questioned, the injured gave out that he had been assaulted by Machhindra from the Vaddar caste. It was Dr. Gholap who conveyed the information to the Narayangaon Police Station on phone. Nothing has been brought out in the testimony of the witness to discredit him. Popatsingh, the father of the deceased, also speaks in the same vein. It was submitted that it was Popatsingh who had put it into the head of Sudam the idea that his assailant, was none other than the appellant. But there was no reason for Popatsingh to so do. Having regard to the time and the place at which the incident took place, it is clear that the victim must have seen the assailant. This being a certainty, no one had any need to put ideas into the head of Sudam. Miss Khot says that Sudam had received an incised wound as also a stab injury, whereas he speaks of only one injury having been inflicted by the appellant. The exact number of the injuries given by the appellant was not necessary to be mentioned by Sudam. It suffices that Sudam made a reference to the assailant being the appellant, first abusing him and giving an indication as to who the Machhindra named as the assailant by him, was. Sandeep is the owner of the grocery shop of Belhekar's. He says that Sudam had come to his shop for purchasing cigarettes and went out after having done so. Miss Khot contrast this with the version appearing in Sudam's dying declaration at Ext. 28, where Sudam claims to have purchased cigarettes from the shop of Chandibai. The two shops face each other and the time at which Ext. 28 was recorded, Sudam was fast sinking. The slight mix -up completely understandable having regard to the location of the two shops, explains the mistake. Sandeep speaks of Sudam lying in a wounded condition on the platform of his shop, i.e., where Sudam was seen by Dr. Gholap. Sandeep went and informed the Sarpanch of what had taken place. Sandeep speaks of Dr. Gholap having been to the scene of offence. The appellant was well -known to Sandeep as he was residing on the rear side of his shop. P.W. 6 Shrikant cam to be present at the spot because he had gone to make purchases from the Belhekar shop. It was the cries of Sudam which attracted his attention. He saw Sudam lying on the platform of Belhekar's shop. This was the boy who had purchased cigarettes from the Belhekar's shop in the presence of Shrikant. He says the appellant was not only present but with a knife in his hand and being dragged away by on of his wives. In his presence, the appellant gave out that the stabbing done by him was an act of retaliation for an earlier beating administered to him by the deceased. Nothing has been brought out in the testimony of Shrikant to discredit him.

(3.) THIS limited omission elicited in cross -examination is to the effect that his statement to the police does not make a reference to his seeing the appellant on the road with a knife in his hand. But the account given by Shrikant is quite correct. Chandibai says that after hearing the lament of Sudarn, she quickly closed the doors of her shop from inside. This is perfectly natural. She knew both the persons, i.e., Sudam as also the appellant. Both were seen by her just before she closed her shop from inside. Santosh is an automechanic and on hearing the cries of Sudam, had come out from his workshop. Sudam had a bleeding injury on his abdomen and the appellant was standing near by with a knife in his hand, One of the wives of the appellant came to the spot and took him away. Both the appellant and Sudain were well -known to him, for he had various things to do with them. Sudam used to get his Luna repaired from the witness and the appellant was one of those who used to transport rubble for being deposited on the road facing his shop. None of the witnesses ascribe any blame to the two wives of the appellant which they could have done, seeing that the two wives had been charge -sheeted alongwith the appellant. This shows a scrupulous regard for truth. The evidence in relation to the discovery of the knife and the attachment of blood -stained clothes from the person of the appellant, may not be of much significance. But in its own way this adds to the incriminating material collected against the appellant. The dying declaration at Ext. 28 confirms the earlier (oral) declarations given by the deceased. It is no answer to say that before this declaration was recorded, the deceased had met his parents. The parents had no reason to get the appellant falsely implicated and the parents who must have seen or learnt of the identity of the assailant, would not let that person go scot -free and drag in an innocent as being the assailant. All bars evidence satisfies us about the guilt of the appellant. Confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against him, we dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.