Case: Rajendra Rajmutyam Mali Vs. State of Maharashtra

1. The incident which has given rise to this appeal occurred on the morning of30 a. m. at Narpali, Bhiwandi, in the State of Maharashtra. According to the prosecution the unfortunate incident arose because of the employer having terminated the services of the accused persons. The employer Kanti Lal was the owner of a powerloom factory situated in a compound where several other similar sheds were located. On the day of the incident the complainant PW 9, Rati Lal Meghji, owner of a transport company had gone to his office situated in the same compound at abouta. m. The deceased Kanti Lal was known to this witness. The witness also knew the accused persons since they were working at the factory of Kanti Lal situated in the same compound. The witness, therefore, claims to have seen the incident from close quarters. Besides, the evidence of the complainant Rati Lal, there is the direct testimony of PW 4 Chandulal, PW 5 Nemchand and PW 7 Kanji Lal Ji, an employee of the deceased. While Rati Lal saw the appellant grappling with the deceased to escape after the other two assailants had fled, the other three eyewitnesses saw the incident in its entirety. In addition to this direct testimony of four eyewitnesses the prosecution also placed reliance on the evidence of one Madan Jhaveri a taxi driver before whom the appellant before us, is alleged to have made a confessional statement. The evidence of the taxi driver shows that after the appellant made a confessional statement he immediately drove him to the police station rather than taking him to Kalyan for which the taxi was hired. At the police station the appellant was searched and a knife found on his person was attached since it had blood like stains. His other two companions were arrested near the bus stand. The knife found from the person of the accused was sent to the chemical analyser and serologist for opinion. The expert opinion is that the stains were of human blood belonging to the group of the deceased. The trial court accepted the evidence of all the four eyewitnesses as well as the evidence in regard to the confessional statement made by the appellant. On the totality of this evidence the appellant and his companions came to be convicted. Their appeal was summarily dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal by special leave

Court's reasoning:
We are of the opinion that the failure to explain this injury on the person of accused cannot be taken to be fatal to the prosecution case having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts reveal that the deceased Kanti Lal was attacked by three persons with daggers and the incident was seen by the prosecution witnesses from very close quarters. Since three persons were attacking the deceased and since no weapon was found on the person of the deceased or lying at the scene of occurrence, it is obvious that only three assailants were armed and since they were all involved in the assault a minor injury caused to one while wielding their weapons may have escaped the notice of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, we think that the trial court was right in not taking too serious a notice of the omissions to explain the injuries. Besides, the seat of the injury is such that if the accused was wearing a full sleeves shirt it would not be noticed by any prosecution witnesses. In the circumstances we do not attach much importance to the failure on the part of the prosecution witnesses to explain this minor injury. We think that on totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution the guilt is brought home beyond doubt. We, therefore, do not see any substance in this appeal.