NARENDRA UDARAM MENDHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS in these appeals were tried for murder of anil Dhore under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had in all examined 12 witnesses including the evidence of eyewitness P. W. 1 Khemraj. The prosecution had also led evidence relating to recovery of weapon used in the crime and also evidence relating to recovery of clothes besides medical evidence and report of Chemical Analyser. The trial court accepted the evidence of eye-witness Khemraj P. W. 1 as also recovery of the weapons under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act even though the said recovery was not supported by the panchas. The trial Court on the basis of evidence on record found all the appellants guilty for the murder of Anil dhore under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment as also fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default further R. I. for one year each. The benefit of set of under section 428 criminal Procedure Code was given to the appellants. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence in these appeals which were heard together and are proposed to be disposed of by common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that there was enmity between family of appellant Narendra and appellant Dharmendra and that of the deceased anil Dhore. On the fateful night at about 9. 15 p. m. the appellants came at the place where Anil Dhore was sitting alongwith Khemraj P. W. 1. Deceased Anil dhore asked the appellants as to what they were watching, upon which the appellant Narendra pushed Anil Dhore on the cot on which he was sitting and then dealt knife blows near abdomen. Appellant Chandrabhan Mendhe caught hold deceased Anil from behind that is from head side and after giving push anil was lying on cot in a supine position. Appellant Chandrabhan gave knife blows on the chest of Anil by standing towards his head. Appellant Dharmendra was standing by the side of cot on which Anil was lying and he also gave knife blows near the abdominal region of Anil Dhore. Khemraj P. W. 1 shouted Dhava bappa and upon hearing the shouts Arvind Kothre came on the spot. On seeing him the appellants fled away from the spot. The deceased was taken to the hospital by his brother Chandrabhan P. W. 2 where he was declared dead. There after F. I. R was lodged after midnight on 26-4-97. The police recovered knives at the instance of the appellants under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The police also recovered blood stained clothes of the deceased as also of the appellants which were sent to Chemical Analyser who found blood stains of 'b' group on the knives and blood stains of 'b' group on the clothes of appellant Narendra and appellant Chandrabhan. After completing the investigati on the charge- sheet was filed and appellants were tried for the murder of Anil Dhore.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for appellant Narendra argued before us that the only solitary eye-witness examined by the prosecution cannot be believed since he is closely related to the deceased and that even otherwise his evidence does not inspire confidence nor there is any corroboration to the evidence of the said eye-witness P. W. 1 Khemraj orany other material on record. He pointed out that the panchas to the recovery of knives at the instance of the appellants, had turned hostile and the trial Court in the circumstances erred in accepting the recovery solely on the basis of the statement made by the Police officer. According to him the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellants and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the said charges. Learned Counsel for the appellant Chandrabhan adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for Narendra and he pointed out that the material evidence relating to the assault of appellant Chandrabhan was not put to him in his statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code as a result of which the evidence of Khemraj P. W. 1 regarding the assault by appellant Chandrabhan on the deceased cannot be acted upon. This contention of learned Advocate for appellant Chandrabhan is not correct since this circumstance was put in question No. 4 to him.