BALIRAM GANPAT JANVILKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At about 9.30 P.M. on August 6, 1980 a person claims to be moving all alone in Jogeshwari locality when he was accosted by a group of four persons and questioned as to why he was talking with the boys on the street and to his utter surprise it is claimed that one of them assaulted him with fist while the other inflected a stab blow on the head causing bleeding injury. The victim, therefore, ran in the opposite direction where is located a shop known as Rajesh Tailoring Shop. One of the said four persons, one parted company while three chased the victim and caught hold of him near the said shop. One of them who is original accused No. 1 assaulted with fist on the face and pressed his head down-wards on the road whereafter accused No. 2 is alleged to have inflicted stab blows which landed on the abdomen and the chest and original accused No. 4 inflicted blows with iron rod which landed on different parts of the person of the victim. This incident is claimed to have been witnessed by certain persons who were standing in the vicinity though no one tried to intervene or go to the rescue of the victim. After the alleged assault the assailants fled away from the spot and it is thereafter that the witnesses rushed near the victim. Among the witnesses happened to be the brother-in-law of the victim who is the complainant Vijay who was accompanied by his friend Sitaram Mahadik. The other group of two witnesses namely Anant and Ranjan appeared to have arrived at the scene after the entire incident was over though Ranjan tried to make out a case giving him a lable as an eye-witness. Anant is the brother of complainant Vijay.

(2.) As per the prosecution case Anant and Ranjan placed the victim Ravindra in a three wheeler which was passing by the road and brought him to the Jogeshwari Police Station obviously with a desire to lodge the complaint. However, it is claimed that some one not belonging to the Police Force who was present in the compound of the said Police Station came near the auto-rickshaw which was halting outside and advised Anant to take the victim directly to the Hospital instead of lodging the complaint, which advice was accepted by Anant with the result that no Police Officer was informed of the incident but the victim was taken to Cooper Hospital where he was admitted as indoor patient. He had sustained bleeding injuries and the clothes were soaked with blood. In view of his condition he had to be subjected to a surgical operation. By that time, Vijay and Sitaram also went to the said hospital via Jogeshwari Police Station. A constable on duty at the hospital transmitted a telephonic massage to the Police Station Officer attached to Jogeshwari Police Station about the arrival of an injured person in pursuance of which Sub-Inspector Rane rushed to the hospital. He made casual inquiries with some of the persons including the complainant. He also attempted to find out whether the victim was in a position to make a declaration but was told that his condition did not permit any such course. Vijay then brought to the Police Station where his complaint Exh. 10 was recorded. Thereafter the panchanama of the scene of offence was recorded when the spot was pointed out by Vijay. The further course of investigation commenced including recording the statements of the witnesses and attachment of blood stained cloths from the person of the victim and attachment of blood scrappings from the scene of offence. It is claimed that on next morning at about 11-30 A.M. Sub-Inspector Rane on instructions from Police Inspector Chavan went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the victim Ravindra in the shape of a dying declaration which is at Exh. 25 which also contains an endorsement of the Medical Officer that the patient was in a fit condition to make the said statement, the endorsement being at Exh. 25-A, though the Medical Officer concerned could not be examined by the prosecution. In spite of the medical aid some complications arose and ultimately the victim succumbed to the injuries on the 10th of August. The offence which was initially registered under section 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was changed to under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In due course the four accused persons came to be arrested. A disturbing development can be considered at this juncture. The muddemal articles including the blood stained clothes and blood scrappings which were lodged in the Police Station came to be completely damaged and wiped out due to the un-expected flood on account of which the water completely ruined the articles lodged in the Police Station in several cases with the result that those articles could not be transmitted to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. No weapons are recovered in spite of the investigation.

(3.) After completing the investigation the four accused persons were charge-sheeted in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereafter commitment they were tried in Session Case No. 18 of 1981 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal code.