PRAKASH PARAB Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed by the accused in Sessions Case No. 30/ 2001. The said accused have been tried, convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Panaji, under Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34, IPC by his judgment and order dated 31.7.2003.

(2.) A bare outline of the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Peter Pereira (Peter Uncle) aged about 55 years, was at the relevant time, residing alone in his house at Umtavado in Calangute, his two other brothers residing elsewhere in the same ward. He was visited last by his son PW 3 Marcelino on 7.4.2001 at about 10 to 11 a.m. along with his own son aged about three years. PW 3 Marcelino after having conversed with his said father Peter, went away. On the next day i.e. 8.4.2001 at about 3 p.m. one Sheila with another old lady went to see the deceased Peter. The said Sheila was one of the tenants of the deceased Peter and after having knocked at his door, found that there was no response, and they reported the matter to PW 5 Mumtaj and then they all reported the matter to the eldest daughter-in-law of the deceased and the latter informed PW 3 Marcelino to go to the house of Peter. PW 3 Marcelino then came to the house of the deceased Peter and found by seeing through the window that his father was lying on the bed in awkward position with blood stains and also found that the clothes in the house were scattered all over. He tried to shout and wake up the deceased but that was of no use and then tried to push the door and found it locked from inside and therefore he took a ladder and entered the house through the roof and found that his father was cold with blood on his face and injury marks on his head. He also noticed the gold ornaments namely a chain, a pendant, two rings and a watch missing. PW 3 Marcelino was followed to the house by one of the brothers of the deceased, namely, PW 1 Alex who was informed by his nephew about the incident and who also saw his brother, the deceased, lying on the bed full of blood and he also saw that the torch which was being used by his brother, bent and with blood. He also found the gold ornaments worn by his deceased brother missing and therefore he proceeded to the Police Station where he lodged his complaint which was written down by PW 31 P.I. Shri Banaulikar who was then the Inspector-in-charge of the Calangute Police Station and who registered the same against unknown culprits under Sections 450, 302 and 392, I.P.C. Upon registering the said FIR. PW 31 P.I. Banaulikar reached the scene accompanied by a dog squad, finger print expert and a photographer. He then prepared a scene of offence Panchanama - Exh. PW 2/A, in support of which PW 2 Alex has been examined. PW 2 Alex apart from describing as to what he saw at the scene had particularly stated that in the room where the body was found there was blood seen on the walls. He produced the sketch prepared by P.I. Shri Banaulikar at Exh. PW 2/B. Shri Banaulikar also prepared an inquest Panchanama which is supported by PW 2 Alex and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem examination. It has been recorded in the scene of offence Panchanama that the dog squad and the finger print operator which were pressed into service did not give any clue. 25 photographs taken by the Police photographer PW 21 Reginald have been produced at Exh. 76.

(3.) The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted by PW 7 Dr. Sapeco on 9.4.2001 and the autopsy report has been produced by him at Exh. PW 7/B. Dr. Sapeco found on the person of the deceased about 11 external injuries which have been described by him on page 3 of his reports. The said injuries were (i) A CLW with dried blood around the bridge of the nose; (ii) a CLW with dried blood around and between the eye-brows; (iii) A CLW with dried blood around the left eye-brow along inner ?rds. (iv) Bruise at frontal region of scalp beyond area between eye-brows. (v) red bruises on the right cheek; (vi) red bruise on the upper lip's mucosa; (vii) red bruise on lower lip's mucosa; (viii) oblique abrasion on the left outer aspect of neck; (ix) CLW with dried blood around with red bruises on left upper eyelid; (x) red bruise on the dorsal aspect of left ring finger's base; and (xi) contused lacerated wounds with blood on palmar aspect of left ring finger's lowest crease region. Dr. Sapeco also noticed that every bruise had 1 cm. deep effusion of blood within its tissues. The dimensions of the said injuries have been given by Dr. Sapeco, which we consider unnecessary to be mentioned here. As regards the internal injuries Dr. Sapecohas stated that upon dissection of scalp he had found effusion of blood under injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and that there were fractures for the roof of both orbital plates and that there were fractures of nasal bones underneath external injury No. 1. He also stated that there was diffusion of subdural and st.barchanoid blood clots at frontal and occipital regions of brain. Dr. Sapeco opined that the death was caused within 48 hours of preservation of the dead body in the morgue and that the death was caused due to facial and cerebral damage caused due to impact of blunt force or object due to cumulative effect of injuries (i) to (vii) and (ix) which were ante Postmortem in nature and within six hours prior to the death and which were fatal in the ordinary course of nature. According to Dr. Sapeco the said injuries could have been caused by a metal torch (MO 1). The said torch was shown to be of six cells. Dr. Sapeco was not cross-examined by the defence regarding the opinion given by him.