DINKAR VISHRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHALIGRAM Namdeo Dhangar of village Pahurjira, the deceased, according to the prosecution sustained injuries at about 1830 hours on 11th February, 1973 in the courtyard of the accused. On receiving the information. PW- 1 Ukarda Bondre the police patil, tendered Ex. 6, upon which PW-11 Mohd. Ismail P. S. I. registered the crime against the accused for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The injured was removed to the hospital and he succumbed to the injuries on 13-2-1973. On receiving intimation as to the death of the injured, PW-11 P. S. I. Mohd. Ismail sent the report for converting the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code into section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation proceeded and ultimately after questioning the witnesses and also completing other formalities, PW- 11 P. S. I. Mohd. Ismail laid the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court on committing the case before it framed charge against the accused for the of fence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, whereupon the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced documents. The trial Court after considering the evidence tendered by the prosecution and after considering the answers given by the accused when he was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for one month.

(2.) IN this appeal, Shri Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant! accused, attacked the finding of the trial Court that the accused is guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as according to the learned counsel, there is hardly any acceptable evidence to prove the prosecution case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and hence the accused was entitled to acquittal. It is pointed out by Shri Daga that the only piece of evidence is that of PW- 3 Deorao, who claims himself to be the occurrence witness. According to the learned counsel Shri Daga, there are infirmities in the evidence of PW- 3 Deorao, so that the same is unworthy of acceptance. Once the evidence of PW- 3 Deorao is found to be not acceptable, it automatically would follow that the accused is entitled to acquittal. But, Shri Wahane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, maintained that the evidence of PW- 3 Deorao does not stand in isolation. Even assuming that PW3 Deorao is only a chance witness, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it may, in the given circumstances, only require that the Court should look for corroboration.

(3.) IT is not the quantum of evidence that matters, but it is the quality of evidence that would count. Therefore, simply because there is only one witness, that by itself is no ground to hold that the prosecution is not successful in proving the prosecution case. Therefore, it becomes necessary to appreciate the evidence of PW- 3 Deorao in the background of attending circumstances. The thrust of the argument of Shri Daga is that with due regard to the evidence of PW- 3 Deorao, it will be spontaneous that he is a chance witness. PW- 3 Deorao said that when he was answering the call of nature, he heard exchange of words towards the direction of the house of the accused. When he reached the scene, he saw the accused executing a blow on the head of the deceased with the pickaxe (Art. 1 ). Shri Dage pointed out, since it was dark as the occurrence was between 7-00 to 7-30 p. m. , there is enough chance of mistaken identity.