Krishnat Bhimrao Shinde & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr

2. As per the prosecution story, the deceased Sadashiv Kundalik Sataverkar was residing in village Kakhe along with his wife Rajashri - P.W. 2 and their children Pravin and Suraj. His elder brother P.W. 8 - Mahadev and P.W. 10 - Sunita (sister-in-law of the deceased), her mother-in-law P.W. 9 - Asha were also residing in a nearby lane. Accused Sambhaji Bapu Shinde, Tanaji Bapu Shinde, Krishnat Bhimrao Shinde are CRL.A. NO. 85 OF 2008 REPORTABLE 2 brothers whereas the fourth accused Babu Rao Bapu Shinde was their cousin. As per the prosecution story, the deceased had let out the open space in front of his house to Tanaji Bapu Shinde -A2 for the purpose of running a cycle shop. It appears, however, that A-2 had cast some aspersions on P.W. 2- Rajashri and when this information was conveyed to P.W. 8 - Mahadev and further to the deceased a quarrel had ensued between Mahadev and the deceased on the one hand and A2 on the other and as a consequence A-2 had been asked to vacate the shop. A week prior to the incident in question, A-1 Sambhaji Bapu Shinde had also deliberately dashed his motor cycle against Suraj, the son of the deceased, causing him minor injuries whereupon the deceased had caught him by his collar and given him a few slaps but on the intervention of those who had gathered at the site, they had been separated. A-1 had, however, left threatening the deceased with dire consequences. At about 3:30 p.m. on 25th November, 1999, the deceased and P.W. 2 - Rajashri had gone to Kodoli to the weekly bazaar and after making their purchases they returned to their village Kakhe in a jeep belonging to one Pandurang Shinde. They got down near the bus stand and started walking towards their residence and as they were doing so, P.W. 3, Shivaji who too had a cycle shop called the deceased CRL.A. NO. 85 OF 2008 REPORTABLE 3 for sharing some pan. The deceased then went into the shop while P.W. 2 - Rajashri waited for her husband a short distance ahead by the side of the road. The deceased then left Shivaji's shop to join his wife and as he was on his way Rajshri heard shouts from the rear and on looking that side saw the four accused armed with various weapons attacking her husband. She also noticed that Sambaji Bapu Shinde and Tanaji Bapu Shinde were armed with an axe and sickle respectively whereas the other two Krishnat Bhimrao Shinde and Baburao Bapu Shinde were armed with lathis. The attack was opened on the deceased by A1 and A2 and they caused serious injuries on the neck and head of the deceased with an axe and sickle and after he fell to the ground, some injuries were caused to him by the other two accused as well. P.W. 8 - Mahadev was immediately informed about the incident by one B.R. Patil and he too rushed to the scene of the crime and thereafter accompanied by P.W. 2 - Rajashri, to police station Kodoli and lodged the FIR at 5:30p.m. The police officers reached the place of incident and made the necessary enquiries and sent the dead body for its post mortem examination. A2, A3 and A4 were arrested on 26th November, 1999 whereas A1 was arrested on the 1st of December, 1999. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for an offence punishable CRL.A. NO. 85 OF 2008 REPORTABLE 4 under Section 302/34 of the IPC and as they pleaded innocence, they were brought to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution relied on 17 witnesses, the primary one being P.W. 2 - Rajashri the solitary eye witness whose statement was sought to be corroborated by P.W. 8 - Mahadev, P.W. 9 Asha and P.W. 10 - Sunita who had received the information about the incident from Rajashri. All the other eye witnesses and others relating to the circumstantial evidence were, however, declared hostile at the trial. The trial court and High Court relying on the statement of P.W. 2, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10, as supported by the evidence of P.W. 12

P.W. 2 undoubtedly is the only eye witness of the incident, the others having been declared hostile. We, however, find absolutely no reason to disbelieve her statement. We notice that the story which she maintained even at the trial had been given by her in the FIR lodged within two hours of the incident. We also find from the record that she had conveyed the information about the murder to P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 almost immediately and they too have supported the prosecution story in its entirity. It is true, as contended by Mr. Sundaravardhan, that all these witnesses are closely related to each other. To our mind, however, in the face of the fact that independent witnesses are reluctant to come forward and this hard truth is exemplified by the facts of this very case itself, we find absolutely no reason in disbelieving the relation witnesses. On the contrary, such witnesses would be loathe to leave out the true assailants and to rope in innocent ones.