:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.814 OF 2005 Santosh Kumar Shakaldeep Singh, Age 31 years, Indian Inhabitant, Occ.Service, Residing at Pitalwala Bldg., Tilak Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. ....Appellant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (At the instance of Santacruz Police Station). ....Respondent. None for the Appellant. Mrs. A.A. More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 9th July, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This is a appeal filed by one Santoshkumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") impugning a judgment and order passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai on 9.2.2005 in Sessions Case No.283 of 2004. By the impugned judgment and order the Trial Court has convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 5-years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for 2-months. The Trial Court has granted set off under Section-428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case were as under. :2: a) That the complainant P.W.No.2-Karuna Shankar Shukla was a security guard formerly employed by "Suraj Securities". He left "Suraj Securities" in the month of December,2003. While he was working with the said firm the accused was also working along with him. They used to work as watchman in a building known as Pitalwala Building. b) While accused and the complainant were so working together, in the month of December,2003, the complainant had given an amount of Rs.3000/- to the accused. On 2.2.2004, the complainant had been to the accused at Pitalwala building to request him to return the amount. At that time the accused asked him to come and collect the due amount on 8.2.2004. c) Accordingly, on 8.2.2004 at about 10.15 p.m. the complainant went to Pitalwala building and met the accused. The accused told him to sit and went to the backside of the building. He returned with a chopper and gave a blow of the chopper on the neck of the complainant. The complainant sustained bleeding injury and fell down. The accused gave another blow of the chopper on the head of the complainant and the said blow hit on the head as well as on the right knee. The complainant shouted loudly and therefore, accused left the place. :3: d) The complainant took a rickshaw and went to Bhabha hospital. In the hospital, he was examined by P.W.No.6 Dr.Tarn Shukla who found the following injuries on his person. i) Contused Lacerated wound on head, Occipital scalp size 10 cm.x 2c.m. x muscle deep. I did not notice fracture clinically. ii) Incised wound on the backside of the neck. Cervical spine C-5-6 level measuring 8 to 10 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep. iii) Incised wound on right hand and little finger size 6 to 8 cm. x muscle deep. Tenderness was present and hence, fracture doubted. The said doctor referred the injured to E.N.T. Department as well as Surgery Department for further treatment. Police Station was informed by the hospital and in due course F.I.R. came to be recorded by P.W.No.7 A.P.I. Fuldas Yadav Bhoye who was Station House Officer at Santacruz Police Station. The Officer then investigated the offence. On 11.2.2004, he recorded the statement of another eye witness P.W.No.4-Karpayya Chandran @ Tambi. Another witness :4: whose statement was recorded was P.W.No.1 Smt. Pritam Morya. e) On 11.2.2004, on receiving secret information about the whereabouts of the accused,P.W.No.8 A.P.I. Arun Naik arrested the accused. On the evening of the same day, upon a statement made by the accused, a chopper was discovered from the garden of Gujarati club situated at Annie Besant road, Santacruz. The same was found hidden in the bush of flower plants. Later, on the same day blood stained shirt of the accused was also discovered in the dry gutter at Firoz Shah Mehta road, near Mafco Milk Centre. In the course of the police investigation, police authorities also seized blood stained pant of the appellant. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed. 3. In due course, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges were framed. At the trial the prosecution led evidence of eight witnesses to prove the case against the accused. These witnesses were P.W.No.1 Smt. Pritam Morya, P.W.No.2 Karunashakar Jaishankar Shukla i.e. injured, P.W.No.3 Shankar Gauda, P.W.No.4-Karpayya Chandran @ Tambi who was an another eye witness, P.W.No.5 Ruppuswami M. Harijan who was a spot panch. P.W.No.6 Dr. Tarun Shukla who was the Doctor who examined the complainant and P.W.No.7 and P.W.No.8 who were the investigating Officers. Based :5: upon the material produced by the prosecution, the trial court passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the accused as above. 4. At the hearing of the appeal, the Advocate for the appellant remained absent and therefore, since the appeal has been dealt with on merits, I have taken extra care to peruse the entire record. In this, I have been assisted by the learned A.P.P. I find that there is absolutely no reason to disblieve the evidence of P.W.No.2 Karunashankar Jaishankar Shukla. He has clearly stated that he was working with the accused for the period of six months. Therefore, there is no question of any mistaken identity of the accused that the accused was the assailant is also mentioned by him in the F.I.R. which is immediately lodged within three hours and 15-minutes of the incident i.e. at 00.30 hours on 9.2.2004. Dr. Tarun Shukla who is an independent witness has stated that the complainant came to the hospital at 11.31 p.m. and this supports the fact that the complainant was assaulted at 10.15p.m. as alleged by him. Doctor Tarun Shukla’s evidence indicates that three injuries as aforesaid were caused to the injured and his evidence totally corroborates the occular evidence given by complainant-Karunashankar Shukla. There is absolutely nothing in the cross examination of the complainant which would throw any doubt about the version given by the complainant. There :6: is also no reason to doubt the evidence of second witness Karpayya Iambi who had seen the incident and identified the accused as the assailant. Further, corroboration is also provided to the discovery of Koyata( sickle) and the shirt of the accused at the behest of the accused. This discovery is immediately made after the arrest on 11.2.2004. The Chemical Analyser’s report indicates that human blood was found in the chopper. A shirt discovered at the behest of the accused had blood stains of B Group which coincided with the blood stains found by the Chemical Analyser on the pant worn by the complainant. P.W.No.1 Smt. Pritam Morya who knew the accused used to bring food box to the accused, also speaks about an extra judicial confession made by the accused to her. All the aforesaid material provides more than adequate ground to conclude that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and that the reasons given for the conviction are sound. 5. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the appeal and the appeal stands dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)