Case: Anil Daggi S/O. Tukaram Mandhare &amp; Others Vs. State of Maharashtra

at about 5.00 PM. The dead body of deceased was found lying by the side of road within no time. It is in such circumstances it was necessary for the appellants to explain whether the deceased left their company and at what point of time. In the present case, the sequence of events happened in quick succession, and therefore, in absence of any explanation by the appellants, the hypothesis of innocence has been completely ruled out. 13. In the instant case, the manner in which the omissions were brought in the cross-examination of Chintaman by cross-examining counsel is concerned, we disapprove the same. The question relating to each omission ought to have been separately asked and answer to the said question also should have been recorded separately and each omission ought to have been proved by the investigating officer separately. 14. In the instant case, we want to express that the trial Court while conducting Sessions Trial needs to pay proper attention to the procedural aspects of the trial. It is the duty of the trial Court to record evidence of the witnesses as per the procedure prescribed in this regard, particularly, in respect of omissions and contradictions. In the instant case, Kalakdas (PW 7), a panch witness on memorandum statement and discovery of weapon of offence, has not supported the prosecution. Similarly, Mohd. Shabbir (PW 5), another panch witness examined by the prosecution to prove seizure of full pant of appellant no.1, has also turned hostile. However, discovery of the weapon of offence as well as seizure of the full pant is proved by Dilip Kulkarni (PW 14), investigating officer. Both these articles were stained with blood of A group, which is the blood group of deceased. It is nodoubt true that if the witnesses do not support the prosecution, the Court should be slow in taking resort to the evidence of investigating officer in order to hold that the recovery and discovery stand proved. However, in a given case where the evidence of investigating officer is cogent, convincing and straight-forward, it is not prohibited in law to place reliance on the testimony of such evidence of Investigating Officer. In the instant case, in our view, discovery of the weapon of offence as well as seizure of the full pant stand proved by the evidence of investigating officer since it is cogent and reliable. As per the Chemical Analysers report, both these articles were stained with the human blood of A group, which was the blood group of deceased. In the instant case, apart from other, following circumstances are material circumstances, which complete the requisite chain: a) On the day of incident, at about 4.00 p.m., deceased Rahul and all the appellants were present at the house of Chintaman (PW 8). b) Deceased Rahul left the house of Chintaman at about 5.00 p.m. on the day of incident along with the appellants and within two hours, the dead body of Rahul with multiple incise and stab wounds was found lying by the side of the road, 10 kms. away from Bhandara city. There is nothing on record to show that deceased Rahul had enmity with anybody other than the appellants and in absence thereof, the possibility of somebody else committed assault on the deceased and would have caused so many multiple injuries is completely ruled out. 15. In the instant case, discovery of weapon of offence assumes importance because the said weapon had a human blood of A group which was the blood group of deceased, which is an incriminating circumstance. Similarly, the full pant of appellant no. 1 which was seized by the investigating officer also had a human blood of A group which is also an incriminating circumstance. It is well settled that when the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogent and firmly established. The circumstances if considered cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. 16. It is well settled that the evidence of the last seen in the normal course may provide for a link in the chain. However, it becomes clinching and conclusive if the time gap between the deceased having been last seen in the company of the accused persons and the murder is proximate. In the instant case, deceased Rahul was not only last seen with the appellants, but he left the house of Chintaman (PW 8) at about 5.00 p.m. along with the appellants. The information about the dead body of deceased with multiple injuries was received at about 7 p.m. The dead body of deceased was lying by the side of the road about 10 kms. From Bhandara city and therefore, it is apparent that the deceased met homicidal death less than two hours from the time he left in the company of the appellants from the house of Chintaman. In the instant case, all the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution if considered cumulatively form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellants are the perpetrators of crime and none else. Similarly, looking to the time gap between the deceased last seen with the appellants and finding of dead body of the deceased with multiple injuries as well as in absence of any evidence about enmity of deceased with any other person in the town, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is incapable of explaining any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the appellants and is inconsistent with their innocence and therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We cannot close our eyes to the fact that, after deceased left the house of Chintaman along with appellants, his dead body was found almost immediately and in absence of any explanation from the appellants, in our view, the circumstance of last seen is a decisive circumstance and assumes importance in the presentthe present case, the sequence of events happened in quick succession, and therefore, in absence of any explanation by the appellants, the hypothesis of innocence has been completely ruledthe instant case, in our view, discovery of the weapon of offence as well as seizure of the full pant stand proved by the evidence of investigating officer since it is cogent and reliable. As per the Chemical Analysers report, both these articles were stained with the human blood of A group, which was the blood group of deceased. In the instant case, apart from other, following circumstances are material circumstances, which complete the requisiteOn the day of incident, at about 4.00 p.m., deceased Rahul and all the appellants were present at the house of Chintaman (PWDeceased Rahul left the house of Chintaman at about 5.00 p.m. on the day of incident along with the appellants and within two hours, the dead body of Rahul with multiple incise and stab wounds was found lying by the side of the road, 10 kms. away from Bhandara city. There is nothing on record to show that deceased Rahul had enmity with anybody other than the appellants and in absence thereof, the possibility of somebody else committed assault on the deceased and would have caused so many multiple injuries is completely ruledthe instant case, all the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution if considered cumulatively form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellants are the perpetrators of crime and none else. Similarly, looking to the time gap between the deceased last seen with the appellants and finding of dead body of the deceased with multiple injuries as well as in absence of any evidence about enmity of deceased with any other person in the town, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is incapable of explaining any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the appellants and is inconsistent with their innocence and therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.