-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.627 OF 1994. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.627 OF 1994. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.627 OF 1994. Bharat Dashrath Surve resident of Degaon, Taluka North Solapur, Dist : Solapur. .. Appellant (Org. Accd. No.2) vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Rajendra Damodar Wankar res. at Degaon, Tal : North Solapur, Dist : Solapur. .. Respondents. R.V.More, Advocate for the Appellant. V.B.Konde Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : S.S.PARKAR & CORAM : S.S.PARKAR & CORAM : S.S.PARKAR & S.R.SATHE, JJ. S.R.SATHE, JJ. S.R.SATHE, JJ. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2004. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2004. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2004. JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant, the original accused no.2 in Sessions Case No.244 of 1993 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, -2- Solapur whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C. and 307 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : . On 20.5.1993 at about 10 a.m. Rajendra and his brother deceased Anil were going on Rajdoot motorcycle from Wankat Vasti to Solapur. When they reached near Koyna Nagar, accused Bharat(present appellant) and his brother Balu came from the opposite side i.e. from Solapur Side on T.V.S.Suzuki. Balu was riding the said motorcycle. He gave dash with his motorcycle to the motorcycle which was driven by Rajendra. As a result of the said dash Rajendra and Anil fell in a ditch by the side of the road. The motorcycle of Balu also fell on the road. Immediately thereafter, Balu took Kukri and assaulted Anil with Kukri on his head, back and abdomen. Not -3- only that but the present accused Bharat also took out his knife ( weapon which apparently looks like Adkitta(nut cracker), but after opening and can be used as knife) and assaulted Anil and Rajendra. As a result of the same both sustained bleeding injuries. Rajendra sustained bleeding injuries. On that Balu and Bharat ran away towards Solapur side by leaving their motorcycle at that place. 3. It is prosecution case that when the said incident was going on, P.W.8 Kokre was passing by the side of the said road on his luna. After seeing the said incident instead of halting there he went to Prakash @ Chandrakant the step brother of Anil and informed him about the incident. Prakash therefore went to the place of incident. After reaching there they took injured Anil as well as Rajendra in a jeep to General Hospital, Solapur. The police constable on duty P.W.16. Yallappa Bansode made query with injured Anil and Rajendra and they told him that Bharat Surve and Balu Surve assaulted them with knife and kukri. He therefore made a report to Salgar Police Station and in turn PSI Deshpande was informed -4- about the incident. He, therefore, went to Special Executive Magistrate Gaikwad and informed him about recording the dying declaration of the two injured persons and actually took him to the hospital. S.E.M. Gaikwad then met the doctor on duty and confirmed to whether the injured are in a position to give statement. When the doctor informed him that they were in a position to give statement, S.E.M. Gaikwad obtained the necessary endorsement of the doctor on the paper and then recorded the dying declaration of Anil. Then he also recorded the statement of Rajendra. PSI Deshpande thereafter verified from the doctor as to whether Anil was in a position to give statement and recorded his statement, exhibit 62. He then sent the said statement to police station and on that basis same crime No.26/93 was registered. 4. In the meantime, at about 10/15 a.m. Balu and accused Bharat and Balu went to Maree Aai police station and there Balu lodged a complaint against Anil and Rajendra. Police recorded the said complaint and also attached the kukri and -5- knife, which were produced by Balu at the police station. On the basis of said complaint, exhibit 84, lodged by Balu, crime No.27/93 was registered. However, after investigation B Summary was granted for the said complaint. PSI Deshpande thereafter went to the place of offence and drew the panchanama on the same day i.e. on 20.5.1993 at about 4 p.m. Anil succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The police then drew the inquest panchanama and also attached the clothes of injured under panchanama exhibit 46. PSI then sent the dead body for post mortem. After recording the statements of the witnesses, sending the attached property to the C.A.,and after completion of the investigation he submitted the chargesheet against accused Balu as well as the present appellant accused for the offences punishable under section 302 r/w.34 I.P.C. and 307 r/w.34 of I.P.C. and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 5. Finding that the accused are chargesheeted for the offences which are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned JMFC committed -6- the case to Sessions Court, Solapur. During the pendency of the said case, accused no.1 Balu died and naturally case against him was abated. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, therefore, framed charge only against the present appellant accused for the offences mentioned above. The charge was readover and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses consisting of the injured eye witness P.W.1 Rajendra Wankar exhibit 42, P.W.2. Laxman Gaikwad, panch for attachment of the clothes of accused, exhibit 43, P.W.3 Nagnath Surwase, panch for attachment of clothes of the deceased, exhibit 45, P.W.4. Dr. Dattatraya Kulkarni, who did the post mortem, exhibit 47, P.W.5 Nisar Shaikh, eye witness to the incident exhibit 53, P.W.6 Srikrishna Oak Maintenance Surveyor exhibit 54, P.W.7 Chandrakant Khandekar who produced the notification with regard to arms, exhibit 56. P.W.8 Dr.Asha Sangolkar exhibit 58, P.W.9 Yallappa -7- Gaikwad, Special Executive Magistrate, exhibit 70, P.W.10 Dr. Vijay Kanetkar, who examined the injured and also operated Rajendra, exhibit 73, P.W.11 Kishore Kokare, another eye witness exhibit 76, P.W.12 Dr. Kantilal Daga exhibit 77, P.W.13 Prabhakar Puranik, police head constable, exhibit 78, P.W.14 PSI Pandurang Salunkhe, exhibit 83, P.W.15 Arjun Jadhav, police constable, exhibit 86, P.W.16 Yallappa Bansode, constable who was attached to the General Hospital, exhibit 88, P.W.17 Police Constable Tukaram Shinde exhibit 91, and P.W.18 Investigating Officer, PSI Ratnakar Deshpande exhibit 95. Prosecution also produced the panchanama of clothes of the accused at exhibit 44, panchanama of clothes of the deceased, exhbit 46, post-mortem notes exhibit 49, map of the place of offence exhibit 55, notification issued by the Commissioner exhibit 57, dying declaration of Anil Wankar exhibit 61, Medical certificate of Bharat Surve exhibit 66, medical certificate of accused Balu Surve exhibit 67, and C.A. reports at exhibit 96 to 100. The defence did not adduce any evidence. However, from the suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses as -8- well as from the statement of accused recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the written say filed by the accused at exhibit 103, it appears that it was the defence of the accused that a day prior to the incident some quarrel had taken place at the time of Assembly election between the group of accused and the group of the deceased. In pursuance of the same on the next day i.e. in the morning of 20.5.1993 Rajendra had given threats to Balu. Thereafter at about 10.am. when Balu and Bharat were proceeding towards Solapur for lodging a complaint against Rajendra, at that time Anil and Rajendra chased them on motorcycle and when they were near Wankar Vasti, Anil gave a slap to Balu and fist blows on the stomach of Bharat. When they just went ahead Anil and Rajendra halted them and gave dash to their motorcycle, as a result of which Balu and Bharat fell in a ditch. At that time Rajendera took out Kukri from the dicky of his motorcycle and when he was about to assault, Balu snatched the said kukri from his hands and gave blows with it to Anil. At that very time, his brother Bharat took out a Adkitta(nut cracker) which was with him and gave -9- blow with the same to Anil. By that time he found that some other persons belonging to the group of deceased anil were coming to that place. They, therefore, ran away from the said place and went to Maree aai police chowki and there Balu lodged a complaint against Anil and Rajendra. Thus, the defence of the accused was of private defence of person and according to them Anil and Rajendra were aggressors. 7. After considering the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and hearing the arguments of both the learned advocates, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that at the relevant time accused Balu and Bharat were in fact aggressors and as a result of the same they were in fact not entitled to have any right of private defence of person. He also held that the evidence on record also shows that though there was no necessity to assault Anil and Rajendra, once Rajendra was disarmed, the accused persons gave several blows with deadly weapon on the vital parts of Anil and Rajendra, and thus both the accused in furtherance of their common intention -10- committed murder of Anil. So far as the injuries sustained by Rajendra are concerned, the trial Court held that the accused has committed offence punishable under section 307 r/w.34 of I.P.C and awarded the sentence as mentioned above. 8. It is this order that is being challenged in this Criminal Appeal. Shri More, learned Advocate for the accused has urged three points. Firstly, he submitted that the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly held that the accused namely Balu and Bharat were aggressors. He also canvassed before us that the learned trial Judge ought to have taken into consideration the circumstance, namely Anil and Rajendra first gave dash to the motorcycle of the accused. Secondly, Rajendra took out kukri from the dicky of his motorcycle and tried to assault accused and accused snatched the said kukri and while doing so he sustained injuries to his palm. Thirdly, immediately after the incident, instead of absconding from the said place the accused persons immediately went to the police station alongwith -11- kukri and knife and at the earliest occasion they made a complaint wherein they have clearly stated that when Rajendra and Anil tried to assault Balu snatched the kukri with a view to save himself and hence Balu and Bharat assaulted Anil. The learned Advocate for the accused also canvassed before us that from the circumstances on record and the conduct of the accused it is necessary to hold that right of private defence was available to the present accused as well as to his brother and at no point of time they had acceded the said right of private defence. In the alternative, it was also argued before us that even if it is held that Balu exceeded the right of defence and gave several blows to Anil, still so far as the present accused Bharat is concerned, it can not be said that he had shared common intention alongwith his brother to exceed such attack and it cannot be said that he is guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. Lastly, it was submitted that at the most the present accused can be held guilty in respect of his overt act i.e. for the offence under section 326 of I.P.C. As against this, the learned APP Shri Konde Deshmukh -12- supported the judgment and order passed by the trial judge. He submitted that there is abundant evidence on record to establish that accused were in fact the aggressors. They had common intention to commit murder. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 9. It is not in dispute that on 20.5.1993 at about 10 a.m. some incident took place between deceased Anil and Rajendra on one side and present accused Bharat and his brother Balu on the other side. Admittedly, when Prakash, brother of deceased was informed about the incident he had gone to the said place and then Anil as well as Rajendra were taken by him to the General Hospital, Solapur. There he was examined by Doctor Kanetkar. Admittedly, Anil succumbed to the injuries sustained by him and thereafter his dead body was sent for post-mortem. Dr. Kulkarni, P.W.4, exhibit 47 did the post mortem and submitted the post-mortem notes exhibit 49. If we see the said post-mortem notes we find that the following external injuries as mentioned were found on person of Anil. -13- 1. Incised wound left side of forehead above left eye brow 6cm x 1cm bone deep frontal bone left side partially chipped off 5 x 2cm x 0.5cm was the injury to the bone. 2. Incised stab wound left side of back of chest supra scapular region 3 x 0.8cm 9 cm deep directed back to front downwards and left to right. 3. Incised stab wound 1cm (Medially) to injury No.2 in supra scapular region of back of chest left side 4cm x 0.8.cm 10cm deep directed back to front downwards and to the right. 4. Incised wound in the right side back of chest 7 cm right of midline at thoracic vertebrae No.6, transverses level. Injury 3.8 x 1cm 11cm deep directed back to front upwards and medially. -14- 5. Incised stab wound midline back of chest over vertebral column thoracic vertebrae No.7. transverse 4.2 x 1.2cm 9cm deep directed back to front upwards. 6. Incised stab wound on the right side of back side chest 10cm right of thoracic vertebrae 3.5 x 1cm 15cm deep, back to front upwards medially. 7. Incised stab wound midline back thoracic vertebrae No.10 region transverse 3 x 0.8cm 6cm deep muscle deep. 8. Incised stab wound right side of back of abdomen 8 cm right of lumber 1 and thoracic 12 vertebrae level, 3 x 1cm vertical upper angle act lower obtuse chest abdominal cavity deep directed back to front, upwards and medially. 9. Scratch on the back of chest supra scapular region 3x 0.8cm 9cm deep directed back to front down wards and left to -15- right. 10. Abrasion on the right side back of chest scapular region oblique 8 x 0.2cm directed above downwards with oval abrasion 1.5 x 1cm at upper end. 11. Abrasion rightside back of shoulder to right side back oblique 8 x 1cm. 12. Incised wound left palm at root of thumb to proximal phalanx tangential cut 2 x 0.5cm muscle deep. 13. Abrasion left palm near root of index finger 1 x 0.2cm. 14. Abrasion left palm proximal phalanx of little finger 2 x 1cm 15. Incised wound left palm 3cm below root of little finger 1.5 x 1cm tangential clean cut edges. -16- 16. Abrasion left palm at foot of little finger 1cm x 0.1cm. 17. Incised wound right hand palmer aspect of tip of middle finger 1.2 x 0.2 cm muscle deep. 18. Incised wound on the right hand palmer aspect of thumb proximal phalanx todistal phalanx 3 cm x 3cm muscle deep tangential cut. 19. Surgically stitched wound right ankle cm in length with 4 stitches. 20. Surgically stitched wound left ankle 4cm in length with 3 stitches. 21. Surgically stitched wound right side of chest laterally over 6th inter coastal space cavity deep 5cm with 4 stitches. -17- The cause of death was opined by the doctor as "shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries at chest and abdomen involving vital structures". So, looking to this evidence there is absolutely no hesitation to held that the death of Anil was homicidal. 10. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the said death was caused due to assault made by the present accused or his brother Balu. While considering this aspect, at the outset it must be mentioned that the occurrence of incident is not at all in dispute. Not only that, but it is also an admitted fact that at the relevant time accused Balu gave blows with kukri to deceased and at that very time accused Bharat also gave three blows with Adkitta (which in fact can also be used as a knife) to Anil. They also assaulted Rajendra, as a result of which he also sustained very serious injuries as mentioned below. 1. Incised wound 1/2" X 1" over lumbo sackal region, Bone deep bleedings. -18- 2. Incised wound over rt. scapular region, Bone deep bleedings 3. Abrasion over right scapular region- longitutional 1cm breadth. 4. Incised wound at T10-T11 4 X 1 1/2c Bone deep bleeding. 5. Incised wound over rt. lumbar region 5 X 2cm on ant. 6. Incised wound over lt. hypochondriac region 6 X2cm Bleeding. 7. Incised wound over Rt. lumbar region post aspect 2 1/2"X 1 cm. 8. 2 incised wounds over thoracic region No active bleeding. His spleen was totally ruptured and spine was also damaged due to which he became paralytic. The -19- main question is whether these injuries were caused by the accused while exercising their right of private defence as according to them they had noticed that Rajendra had taken out a kukri from the dicky of his motorcycle and was about to assault. Infact, it is the case of prosecution that at the relevant time Anil and Rajendra were as usual proceeding towards Solapur and when they were accordingly passing through Sherkhan Vasti, accused Balu and his brother came there on their TVS Suzuki motorcycle from the opposite side i.e. from Solapur side. They gave dash to them and then they fell in a ditch which was by the side of the road and at that very time accused Balu assaulted Anil with Kukri. So also the present accused assaulted Anil and Rajendra. Thus, we find that as per the prosecution version accused persons were the the aggressors, while deceased Anil and his brother Rajendra were not the aggressors. So, we have to find out whose version is true and correct. It is true that while considering this aspect, initially the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and so far as the contention of -20- the accused with regard to right of private defence is concerned, it is to be decided only on the touch stone ofpreponderance of probabilities and if it appears that right of private defence was available to the accused at the relevant time, then benefit of same has to be given to the accused. Bearing in mind this position, we have to scan the evidence on record to find out whether prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt or whether the contention raised by the defence appears to be probable. 11 . Accused has not adduced any evidence in support of their right of private defence. Of course, it is well settled that even if from the material on record it appears that there was possibility of right of private defence then same is to be considered and can not be negatived merely because no specific evidence has been adduced by the accused. 12. The first circumstance which was strongly relied on by the accused is that immediately after the occurrence of the incident the accused had -21- straightway gone to the police chowki and that too with the weapons and Balu had lodged a complaint, wherein he had clearly stated that he and his brother assaulted Anil and Rajendra with kukri and the other weapon, but had disclosed the circumstances under which they assaulted these two persons. It was also argued before us that there is evidence on record to show that Balu and Bharat had gone to Maree Aai police chowki at about 10.15.a.m. So if really the accused were not aggressors and had an intention to commit murder or to cause injury to Anil and his brother and they had in fact caused such injuries they would have absconded from the said place and in any case would not have gone straightway to the police station with weapons which were used by them. No doubt this is an important circumstance but one does not know in what manner a particular person would behave and react to a given situation. Merely because the accused persons instead of absconding went to the police station with weapons and informed the police about the incident, one can not jump to the conclusion that they were not aggressors or that whatever acts they have -22- committed were in the right of their private defence. It may be, that finding that at the said place some other three persons of complainant’s side were approaching and there was possibility of they assaulting the accused, the accused must have thought it fit to go to police station. It is true that if really they had attacked Anil and his brother then it is difficult to believe that within such short time it would occur to them that they should take the stand of right of private defence. But while considering this aspect it appears that though police constable Pandurang Salunkhe, exhibit 83 has stated that at about 10.15 accused had been to maree aai police chowki and they made the complaint, there is no other document to show that the accused had been to that police chowki by 10.15 a.m. On the contrary, if we see the said report exhibit 84 we find that the same is registered at 13.15 hours i.e. after about three hours from the incident. So, though it is tried to be suggested that there was prompt lodging of the complaint the record shows otherwise. On the contrary, we find that in the meantime admittedly P.I. Deshpande had come to -23- know at Salgav Vasti police station about the incident and he had taken Special Executive Magistrate Gaikwad alongwith him to the General Hospital and there the Special Executive Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration of Anil in which he had clearly stated that Balu and his brother Bharat assaulted him and Rajendra with Kukri and knife. This dying declaration is recorded at 11.45 a.m. So, from the documents on record it appears that the complaint in respect of the incident was first lodged by Anil and not by accused. So, we are in fact not inclined to hold that the complaint of accused persons was lodged at the earliest occasion at 10.15 and that too prior to the time complaint of Anil was registered. So, merely because the accused had shown promptness in lodging the complaint with police wherein they had involved Anil and his brother we can not jump to the conclusion that the said circumstance is sufficient to hold that they were not the aggressors or that they assaulted Anil and Rajendra while exercising their right of private defence. -24- 13. Secondly, it was argued before us that at the relevant time the accused had not even taken their motor cycle but had left the same at the place of incident and they went running to the police station. So, according to the learned Advocate for the accused that also shows that they were apprehending danger of assault being committed by the other persons and as such they ran away from the said place. When such is the position how can it be said that they were not the aggressors. It is infact really difficult to