[- 1 -] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.382 OF 1991 Vithal Sitaram Punewale ] Age 20 years, Resident of ] House No.580, North Sadar Bazar] Solapur. ]..Appellant Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra ] 2. Rajusingh Rupchand Satarwale] North Sadar Bazar, Solapur ]...Respondents .... Mr.Rahul S.Kate Advocate for the Appellant Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 06, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 06, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 06, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.6.1991 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.189 of 1990. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 37(1) r.w. 135 of Bombay Police Act. For the offence under section 307 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- i.d. RI for six months. For the offence under Section 37(1) r.w. 135 of Bombay [- 2 -] Police Act, the appellant has been sentenced to RI for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- i/d RI for ten days. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case briefly stated is as under: . PW 2 Rajusingh i.e. injured witness was residing in the premises of the appellant at Solapur. The appellant along with his brothers and others were carrying on business of country liquor in the adjoining premises. The said persons told PW 2 to vacate the premises as the appellant and his brothers found their premises to be inadequate to carry on business of country liquor. On being asked to vacate the premises, PW 2 Rajusingh and his family members vacated the premises. They started residing in another room nearby. Thereafter police conducted raid on the premises of the appellant. The accused persons including appellant were saying that Rajusingh had given information to the police, therefore, the premises of the accused persons were raided. Hence, accused persons threatened him. This happened around two months prior to the [- 3 -] incident. . The incident occurred on 14.2.1989 at about 10.15 to 10.30 p.m. It is the prosecution case that original accused no.4 Ramsingh and original accused no.3 Gokul caught hold of Raju. There was scuffle. At that time, the present appellant came there and he gave blows with knife on the chest and stomach of Raju. Raju was taken to hospital where PW 1 Raut examined him. Dr.Raut found two injuries on the person of Raju i.e. injury no.1 was over chest at left side on front part of the chest (in medical words 8/4 intercostal space) size 2 x 10 c.m. and injury no.2 was on abdomen on the epigastroun, 2 x 1 cm in size. Omentum came out of the wound. Both the injuries were on vital part of the body. According to Doctor, injury no.1 was simple however, injury no.2 was grievous in nature. According to Doctor, if medical aid would not have been received by the injured, then he would not have survived. According to Doctor, both the injuries were caused by hard, sharp and pointed weapon and both the injuries were possible by Muddemal article no.1. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. [- 4 -] 3. The charge came to be framed against the appellant and other three accused under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 37(1) r.w. Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned sessions Judge acquitted the original accused nos.2 to 4, however, original accused no.1 i.e. present appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned advocate for the appellant-original accused no.1 and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as evidence and record. deserves to be partly allowed. 5. The conviction of the appellant is founded on the evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 5. PW 2 Raju is the injured witness. PW 4 Prakash and PW 5 Rupchand are eye witnesses to the incident. PW 2 Raju has stated that he was residing in the premises of the [- 5 -] appellant at Solapur. The appellant along with his brothers and others were carrying on business of country liquor. The said persons told the appellant to vacate the premises as the appellant found their premises to be inadequate to carry on business of country liquor. On being asked to vacate the premises, PW 2 Rajusingh and his family members vacated the premises. They started residing in another room nearby. Thereafter police conducted raid on the premises of the appellant. The accused persons were saying that Rajusingh had given information to the police, therefore, the premises of the accused persons were raided. Hence, accused persons threatened him. This happened around two months prior to the incident. . In respect of the incident, PW 2 Raju has stated that original accused no.4 Ramsingh and original accused no.3 Gokul caught hold of Raju. There was scuffle, at that time, the present appellant came there and he gave blows with knife on the chest and stomach of Raju. 6. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW 2 Raju, who is the injured [- 6 -] witness so as to disbelieve his testimony. His evidence is supported by the medical evidence. The evidence of injured witness Raju is also supported by the evidence of two eye witnesses PW 4 Prakash and PW 5 Rupchand. Both of them have stated that appellant rushed upon Raju and asked him as to why he was giving information to the police. Thereafter the appellant stabbed Raju on the chest and stomach with knife. Both these witnesses have not been shaken during their cross examination. 7. Looking to the evidence of these three witnesses and the medical evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution has fully proved its case as far as Section 307 of IPC is concerned. As far as offence under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act is concerned, the same has been proved through evidence of PW 6 ASI Kalmankar. 8. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant. However, as far as sentence under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, it is seen that the accused was barely 20 years of age at the time of the incident. Moreover, incident has [- 7 -] occurred in the year 1989 i.e. almost 20 years ago. Looking to the age of the appellant at the time of the incident and the fact that incident had occurred almost 20 years ago, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 307 of IPC from seven years to five years. 9. In the result, the conviction of the appellant imposed by the learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge Solapur in Sessions Case No. 189 of 1990 under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 37(1) r.w. 135 of Bombay Police Act is confirmed. Sentence imposed under Section 37(1) r.w. 135 of Bombay Police Act, is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is reduced from seven years to five years RI. The appellant shall surrender forthwith to undergo remaining part of the sentence. 10. Appeal is partly allowed. [SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]