1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18/2007 Raju Bihari @ Rajeshkumar Patel, S/o. Bebhoti Prasad Patel, r/o. Sangrampur, Pratapgad, Uttara Pradesh, presently lodged in Central Jail, Aguada, Bardez, Goa. ........... Appellant. Versus S T A T E (through P.P.) ........... Respondent. Mr. P. P. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 29th April, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per N.A. BRITTO, J.) This is an appeal filed by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The accused was a helper of the deceased Shankar Fulwadia who was a tile fitter and the latter was employed by the contractor Shri PW.5/Vinayak Shahapurkar who was constructing a house for 2 PW.1/Gurudas at Bandora, near Mahalaxmi Temple, and, as the house was to be completed by 31.8.04, as PW.1/Gurudas wanted to have the house ready for Ganesh Chaturthi of that year, the work of constuction was going on round the clock and several workers, including tile fitters, tile polishers and painters, were working in the said house. 3. On 28.8.04, at about 8 p.m., there was a fight between the accused and the deceased and the fight was because the accused was demanding money from the deceased and the deceased had told the accused that he would get his money only on the next morning. At that time there was a scuffle between both of them and they were separated with the intervention of one PW.13/Munna, a painting contractor and after the said separation, the deceased again had told the accused that in case he did not do the work he would not be provided food and thereafter, the accused went to a hotel to have his food and returned therefrom at about 11 p.m. 4. The incident of assault upon the deceased took place at 00.30 hours of 29.8.04. After the incident, the workers went to the house of PW.2/Dattaram, the brother of PW.1/Gurudas who was residing close to the house under construction. He was told by the workers that the accused was assaulted by the deceased “Raju ne Shankar ko mara aur wo bhag gaya”, 3 whereupon he phoned the contractor PW.5/Vinayak Shahapurkar and later rushed to the site and saw that Shankar Filwadia was fallen near the staircase with blood all over but the accused was not there and he informed the police who came to the spot and shifted the deceased to the I.D. Hospital and upon inquiries from PW.23/Pappu and others who were present, he came to know that the deceased and the accused had altercations at about midnight whereupon the deceased had called Pappu and when Pappu went to see, Pappu found Shankar fallen on the staircase. He also found that the accused was on the site and, therefore, he lodged his complaint against the accused and this was at about 1.45 a.m. 5. Soon thereafter, at about 2.45 a.m., PW.4/Sambaji Talwar who was working as ASI at Molem Police Outpost upon having received a phone call from PW.25/P.I. Gaonkar to apprehend a person of stated description, went to Molem junction and after having seen the accused, matching with the said description, apprehended the accused and brought him to the Molem Out Post and at that time the accused was wearing a chocolate coloured shirt (Exh. 16) and a greenish grey coloured pant (Exh.15). As stated by him, the clothes of the accused were dirty and his legs were smeared with marble polish. PW.25/PI Gaunkar was informed about the arrest of the accused and thereafter, PW.16/PSI Waigankar along with PW.23/Pappu were sent to 4 confirm the identity of the accused and after the same was confirmed, the accused was placed under arrest and his clothes were seized under a panchanama in the presence of PW.7/Shanu, who has confirmed the attachment of the said clothes. 6. The inquest panchanama was prepared in the presence of PW.8/Nandakumar and the clothes of the deceased, including the blood stained shirt with cut marks, were seized. The autopsy was conducted by PW.12/Dr. Andre Fernandes who found on the deceased as many as 13 injuries which he has described at page 3 of the autopsy report Exhibit-34 and which he also deposed before the Court. As per PW.12/Dr. Andre, the death of the deceased was caused due to perforating injury to the heart vide injury No.1 which was caused by narrow ended chisel and which was antemortem, fresh and necessarily fatal at the time of death. 7. The accused having been charged for murder of the deceased, the case of the accused was one of denial simpliciter. In fact, it was stated on behalf of the accused that he was not at all present in the said bungalow at the time of incident and he had left the said spot at about 7 p.m. and he was going to his native place as his mother was sick and when he was sleeping near Hotel Ashok at Mollem, the police caught him and then filed false case 5 against him. 8. The prosecution had examined 26 witnesses in the trial which followed. The accused examined none. 9. The case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering several circumstances proved by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 10. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the incident and it appears that all the workers who were present in the house under construction were doing their respective works. 11. Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused contends that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the accused had returned to the house under construction, after he went out for dinner. This submission cannot be accepted. PW.16/Surendra has stated that the accused went out to eat and returned at 11 p.m.. Similarly, PW.26/Munna who was present in the hotel along with the accused has confirmed that they came back to the house at about 10.30. 6 12. The most important witness examined by the prosecution is PW.23/Pappu Kumar. As stated by him, he was also a marble fitter and was working for the deceased. He stated that at about midnight he heard the deceased Shankar saying “Papu Bhag, Raju mar Raha hai” and immediately thereafter he saw the accused running away from the backside of the bungalow by holding something in his hand and he also saw the deceased Shankar fallen on the staircase, bleeding from his chest and stomach and gasping sound was coming from the mouth, and all the labourers had gathered near the deceased. He stated that they phoned the builder from the neighbouring house, who came to the spot and, in turn phoned the police. In his cross examination, it was brought to his notice that earlier in his statement to the police he had not made any such statement but had stated that “Papu, Papu, Rajune mara” and he could give no explanation for the divergence in his statements. It was also suggested to him that it is he who had murdered the deceased, a suggestion which he promptly denied. Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused, highlighting the said variation as regards the actual words used by the deceased and heard by PW.23/Pappu, has submitted that the said variation shows that he was not at all present. We are not inclined to accept the said submission. In our view, too much importance cannot be given to the said variation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the deceased had called out to Pappu and not only that, he had also taken the name of the 7 accused as assailant and for the reason suggested, it cannot be said that he was not present in the house at the time of the incident. What is most important to note is his statement that he saw the accused running away holding something in his hand. The accused has given no explanation as to why he was not found amongst the workers after the deceased was assaulted. The accused has also not given any explanation as to how he was found in Molem with his legs smeared with marble polish. The words spoken by the deceased while calling Pappu for help speak for itself about the involvement of the accused. There is no reason why PW.23/Pappu should have deposed in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. 13. In the case of Rattan Singh vs State of H.P., reported in (1997) 4 SCC 161, the Apex Court was dealing with a case where on the night of occurrence all the inmates were sleeping in the courtyard. The mother in law of the deceased had woken up, sensing that somebody had intruded into their privacy. Suddenly the deceased had cried out that the appellant who was known to her, was standing there with a gun. This was followed by the sound of the gun and pellets delved into her body. The question was whether the statement of the deceased that the appellant was standing with a gun was admissible in evidence. The Apex Court observed that the expression “circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death” appearing in 8 Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act has wider amplitude. It is enough if the words spoken by the deceased have reference to any circumstance which has connection with any of the transactions which ended up in the death of the deceased. Such statement would also fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. In other words, it is necessary that such circumstances should be proximate, for, even distant circumstances can also become admissible under the sub-section, provided it has nexus with the transaction which resulted in the death. The Apex Court also observed that apart from Section 32(1) of the evidence Act, the statement of Kanta Devi could be admitted under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and referred to illustration `A' of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, which reads as follows : “(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.” and concluded that the said statement of Kanta Devi that the appellant was standing with a gun, and his firing the gun at her, were all circumstances so intertwined with each other by proximity of time and space that the statement of the deceased became part of the same transaction. The Apex Court further stated that whether the said statement was admissible under Section 32(1) or under Section 6 of the evidence Act, it was substantive evidence which can be acted upon with or without corroboration in finding guilt of the accused. 9 The same principle as stated by the Supreme Court can be followed in this case as well. Thus, one thing is clear from the evidence of PW.23/Pappu that the deceased called him and told him that he was assaulted by the accused and that sufficiently implicates the accused in the murder of the deceased. 14 The pant of the accused (Exh.15/MO.1) which the accused was wearing was seized by the investigating officer in the presence of P.W.7/Shanu. PW.7/Shanu has confirmed the said seizure in his evidence before the Court and has further stated that the shirt and the pant of the accused were seized and sealed. The said pant when sent to C.F.S.L. was found with human blood of group “B”. Here it may be noted that at the time of postmortem of the deceased, his blood sample was sent to the blood bank and the report submitted by the prosecution, namely Exhibit-35 through PW.12/ Dr. Andre shows that the blood group of the deceased was `B' RH Positive. The accused was examined at 8.35 a.m. on 29.8.04 and there were no injuries on him and this position only reaffirms that the blood found on the clothes of the accused is none other than that of the deceased. As rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, the injuries noted subsequently on 30.8.04 by PW.12/Dr. Andre, namely one superficial reddish grazed abrasion with a soft scab on the right shoulder show that they were subsequently caused and had no connection with the incident. In other words, the 10 prosecution has established that the blood of the group of the deceased was also found on the pant of the accused and this is a strong circumstance which corroborates involvement of the accused with the alleged crime. 15. The chisel was recovered at the instance of the accused, which is another circumstance proved by the prosecution. PW.10/Abdul who is a carpenter stated that on 28.8.04, as usual, he had kept his tools on the first floor of the bungalow and on the next day he had found the chisel missing and after two days when he went to the police station he was shown the said chisel in a box and he had identified the same and subsequently he also identified the said chisel before the Court. The said chisel was seized in the presence of PW.9/Raghunath who has stated that the accused had volunteered to show the place where he had kept the weapon and the shirt. After having shown the shirt in the newly constructed bungalow, they proceeded towards the place where he had kept the weapon and after reaching Farmagudi jungle, the accused told the driver to stop the vehicle and thereafter took them walking for a distance of about 40 to 50 metres and then went into the bushes and brought one chisel with plastic handle, which chisel was put in a box and sealed. The said chisel has not only be identified by PW.10/Abdul to whom it belonged, but has also been identified by PW.23/Pappu which he had seen in the hand of the accused, when he saw the 11 accused running away. It has also been identified by PW.10/Dr. Andre as the weapon with which the injuries on the deceased could have been caused. In fact, it was clearly stated by PW.12/Dr. Andre that the injuries on the deceased could have been caused by the chisel. The learned Counsel on behalf of the accused contended that PW.12/Dr. Andre could not have given such an opinion that the injuries were caused by the chisel, without having seen the same or without being told about it by the police. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel. After all, PW.12/Dr. Andre is an expert medical witness and for a person who knows the shape of a chisel, it would not have been difficult for him, on observation of the type of injuries to opine that the injuries were caused by the chisel. The shirt and pant (MO.10) which were seized in the presence of PW.8/Nandakumar were also sent to C.F.S.L. and the report shows that cut marks found on the shirt and the pant of the deceased, could have been caused by said chisel which again shows that the chisel(MO.9) was used for stabbing the deceased Shankar. 16. The evidence of the prosecution abundantly proves that the accused was working with the deceased Shanker as his helper and had a motive to kill the deceased as he had a fight with the deceased at about 8.00 p.m. of the previous day, whereupon the deceased had told him that he would 12 get his wages only on the next day. The accused was also seen in a tense manner. 17. The call for help by the deceased and heard by PW.23/Pappu also sufficiently implicates the accused with the murder of the deceased. 18. We may note that the circumstances proved by the prosecution have been summed up by the learned Sessions Judge in para 104 of his Judgment, which read as follows : “Firstly the prosecution has proved that the accused was working with Shankar Fulwadia as a helper in fitting of the marble tiles in the bungalow under construction at Bandora. On 28.8.04, the prosecution has proved that the accused was present in the bungalow and at around 8 p.m., he had a fight with Shankar due to non-payment of his wages by Shankar. The prosecution has proved that the accused thereafter went out for dinner to a hotel at around 9.30 p.m., and returned at around 10.00 p.m. He was moving on the first floor of the bungalow in a tense manner. At around 00.30 hrs. on 29.8.04 the late Shankar Fulwadia had called out to Pappu that he is being assaulted by the accused Raju, and this has been proved from the depositions of PW.23, PW.14, PW.16, PW.17. It has also been proved that at that time PW.23 saw the 13 accused running out of the bungalow with the chisel under MO.9 in his hand. Shankar was seen to be having bleeding injuries on his stomach and body. He was shifted to hospital and declared dead. The accused was arrested within 4 hours at the Mollem out post and he was found to be having blood on his pant. The blood group of the blood on his pant has been found to be that of the deceased. The accused was arrested on 29.8.04 and on the same day, the chisel under MO.9 was recovered at his instance. This chisel has been identified by PW.23 as having been seen in the hands of the accused when he ran away. PW.12 Dr. Andre also deposed that this chisel could have caused the injuries found on the deceased. As per the CFSL report dated 28.3.05, this chisel under MO.9 could have caused the cut marks on the shirt and pant of the deceased. The prosecution has also established the motive of the accused for causing the crime as he had a grievance with Shankar Fulwadia for not paying his money. Accordingly. I conclude that from the evidence on record which I have elaborately considered, the prosecution has established the chain of circumstances, linking the accused with the murder. It is the accused alone, who had caused the homicidal death of Shankar Fulwadia and then escaped.” 19. The accused inflicted upon the deceased 13 injuries. Injury No.1 is fatal in nature. It has been described by PW.12/Dr. Andre as follows : 14 “Injury No.1 penetrating wound 10 x 9.00 mm with squarish reddish abraded margins around the wound of 1.2 cms x 1 cm. with fluid blood coming of it, placed on left side of chest in the 6th inter coastal space 7 cms. from mid line, 23 cms. below left clavicle in the mid clavicular line and 128 cms. above the left heel. On dissection it makes a track of 1.5 cms. depth in the skin, sub cutanus, tissues, fat and inter coastal muscle of the chest wall, then makes a cut in the pericardinal sac of 5 x 3 mm and then makes a cut of 5 x 3 mm to the anterior wall of the heart, 1.5 cms. medial to the apex forming a tracks of 2.5 cms. and then enters the right ventrical and makes a through and through a cut of 4 mm x 3 mm on the interior wall of the heart. The track is filled with fluid blood and blood clots and is directed backwards, downwards and inwards and is of 7 cms. length. There is extra vasation of blood all along the track of the wound.” 20. Thus, it can be seen that the accused used sufficient force to inflict the injury which was fatal in the ordinary course of nature as opined by PW.12/Dr. Andre and in such circumstances, the conviction and sentenced imposed upon the accused, in our view, cannot be faulted. 21. Lastly, learned Counsel on behalf of the accused submits that the deceased not only did not pay the wages of the accused, but also deprived 15 him of his food and, therefore, the assault by the accused took place under grave and sudden provocation and therefore this is a fit case to scale down the conviction from 302 to 304 I.P.C. We are unimpressed with this submission. The facts proved by the prosecution do not show that there was any provocation on the part of the deceased, much less grave and sudden. The accused was told at about 8 p.m. that he had to work and he would get money on the next day morning. That cannot be said to be an unreasonable request considering that all the workers were working round the clock so that the house would be completed as scheduled. That incident ended in a scuffle. Thereafter, the accused went out, had his meal and returned. The accused was then seen going about in a tense mood. The accused had sufficient time to cool down his temper. The accused then assaulted the deceased at 00.30 hrs. without any provocation several times and with such force so as to penetrate the interior wall of the heart. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal and consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm.