Case: Jagdish Bansu Kharwal Vs. The State of Maharashtra

and he carrying bags in the early morning at about 6pm to 6.30 pm on 17.12.2004 is established completely when the body of the deceased was found in bags in the chamber of the gutter. Inquest panchanama (exhibit 16) shows that the body was found in a gunny bag. There was a black polythene scrap bag and in that bag a dead body was wrapped in a white bedsheet. The body was identified as that of the deceased Irfan by his brother PW1 Sayyed. There was a deep cut throat injury. There were also injuries on the incised wounds on the hand, on the chest and on the stomach. The gutter in which the dead body was found was approximately 450 away from Gaurav bungalow. Thus, the evidence of PW10 is a vital evidence of the prosecution and it alone connects all the links as to how the incident had taken place. The blood stains found in the room of the accused is another strong aggravating circumstance against the appellant. The appellant was occupying the said room and the room was totally in his control. He locked the room and handed over the keys of the room. Both the appellant and the deceased were in the business of scrap material. So the body of the deceased was also disposed of like a scrap. It was put in a black polyethene scrap bag and then in the gunny bag and threw in the chamber of a drain.7. The learned defence Counsel tried to assail the evidence of all the witnesses. She pointed out that the appellant was arrested on 24.12.2004 from Uttar Pradesh but that cannot be a circumstance against the appellant. She submitted that the trial Court has disbelieved the discovery panchanama of the key of the motor cycle of the deceased which was drawn at the instance of the appellant. She further pointed out that the recovery panchanama of the clothes of the appellant is not proved by the prosecution as the panch witness PW4 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is to be noted that the panch Rajendra Gupta had admitted in the cross-examination that he is also from Uttar Pradesh and he knew the appellant and the appellant was also from Uttar Pradesh. He admitted in the cross-examination that on 27.12.2004, he was called at the police station. However, he denied drawing of the panchanama. The said panchanama (exh. 15) of the recovery of the clothes and the gunny bag which were found in the stream was proved by the PW17 P.I. Shafiuddin. PW17 had stated about recording of the FIR, then finding of the body and also drawing of panchanama (exhibit 9) of the room of the appellant as also about the finding of the blood stained gunny bag and clothes and bandage from the room. He had stated that the appellant was arrested at Uttar Pradesh on 24.12.2004 by PW14 P.S.I. Vani. He had stated that panchanama, memorandum were drawn in the presence of panchas and gunny bag containing some clothes, visiting cards of the deceased and photographs were found in the stream and the panchanama and the memorandum were drawn at exhibits 14 and 15. Thereafter, all the articles were sent to the C.A. The C.A. report (exhibit 48 to 51a) discloses that the blood group of the appellant was group B and the blood group of the deceased was A and on most of the articles, blood group A was found. The medical evidence tendered by the prosecution also throws light on how the deceased was killed. PW16 Dr.Shailendra Patil had conducted postmortem on 18.12.2004. He found four external injuries on the body. There were incised wound, 5cm below the chin, 20 inch in length which was through upto vertebra on vital structures plain cut and it was 5 cm deep. There were also two incised wounds on the chest and on the left forearm and one CLW was found on the thigh. He had opined that as a result of shock due to cut throat injury, the deceased had cardio respiratory arrest and he died. This evidence shows that the neck of the deceased was completely cut and due to that deep injury, there was a lot of blood flown out of the body and naturally, so many blood stains were found in the room of the appellant.8. The appellant had also sustained injuries on his person and when he was arrested, he was produced for medical examination on 24.1.2004 before Dr.Arun Satdive (PW15). Dr.Satdive found many injuries on the fingers and the palm of the appellant. All the injuries were mostly incised injuries on the fingers which were nearly 10 in numbers. Dr.Satdive (PW15) had opined that all these injuries were possible by sharp cutting edged instrument and all the injuries were caused within 7 to 10 days but they were simple in nature. Accordingly, he had given the certificate at exhibit 14. The opinion of Dr.Satdive (PW15) that the injuries were caused within 7 to 10 days and those injuries were not fresh injuries when the appellant was examined by the Dr.Satdive on 24.12.004, shows the age of the injuries and relates the same to the date of the incident i.e., on 16.12.2004, which had taken place nearly 7 to 10 days prior to 24.12.2004.9. Thus, though there is no eye witness, the circumstances prove and cumulatively establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution could not establish any motive against the appellant. However, in some cases, it is difficult to get any evidence in respect of the motive through the investigating agency. However, the evidence if collected and proved establishes the offence, then the absence of proof of motive is not a beneficial circumstances to the accused.10. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the trial Court holding the appellant accused guilty for the offence u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]8. The appellant had also sustained injuries on his person and when he was arrested, he was produced for medical examination on 24.1.2004 before Dr.Arun Satdive (PW15). Dr.Satdive found many injuries on the fingers and the palm of the appellant. All the injuries were mostly incised injuries on the fingers which were nearly 10 in numbers. Dr.Satdive (PW15) had opined that all these injuries were possible by sharp cutting edged instrument and all the injuries were caused within 7 to 10 days but they were simple in nature. Accordingly, he had given the certificate at exhibit 14. The opinion of Dr.Satdive (PW15) that the injuries were caused within 7 to 10 days and those injuries were not fresh injuries when the appellant was examined by the Dr.Satdive on 24.12.004, shows the age of the injuries and relates the same to the date of the incident i.e., on 16.12.2004, which had taken place nearly 7 to 10 days prior to 24.12.2004.9. Thus, though there is no eye witness, the circumstances prove and cumulatively establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution could not establish any motive against the appellant. However, in some cases, it is difficult to get any evidence in respect of the motive through the investigating agency. However, the evidence if collected and proved establishes the offence, then the absence of proof of motive is not a beneficial circumstances to the accused.10. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the trial Court holding the appellantaccused guilty for the offence u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.