LexRAJENDRA PRABHU CHIKANE AND ANR ETC versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJENDRA PRABHU CHIKANE AND ANR ETC. A ,J. v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. MAY I, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-ss.302134-Murder-Three accused-Allegation that they assaulted deceased with 'Sattur ', an iron instrument used for cutting sugarcane-Previous enmity between parties with regard to boundary c dispute in respect of agricultural lan~onvictions of accused no. I under s. 302 and other two accused under s. 302134-Propriety of-Held, proper- Police report was lodged promptly and all actions were taken soon after the incident-Jn the FIR all three accused were named as assailants-This version corroborated by testimony of PWJ as well as PW3-Further corroboration from medical evidence-Besides, weapon of offence recovered pursuant to D inte"ogation of one accused-Prosecution proved guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There was bad blood and enmity between the parties in view of a boundary dispute in respect of an agricultural land belonging to the father of the E deceased. According to the prosecution, the three accused-appellants assaulted the deceased, with accused no. 1 attacking him on his head whereafter all the three accused attacking him on his head with a Sattur, an iron instrument used for cutting sugarcane. The deceased received seven injuries, most of F which injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body like the head and the neck. Trial Court convicted accused no. 1 under Section 302 IPC but acquitted accused nos. 2 & 3 High Court upheld the conviction of accused no. 1 and also set aside the acquittal of accused no. 2. and 3 by convicting them under G Section 302/34 IPC. Hence the present appeals . .,;. ,, Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In the FIR all the three accused have been named as the 1075 H 1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. A assailants and this version is corroborated by the testimony of PWI as swell as PW3. They all stated that accused No I attacked deceased on his head and thereafter all three accused attacked him on his head with a Sattur, which is scythe like iron instrument used for cutting sugarcane. Thus the evidence of PWl and PW3 is consistent with each other, and also with the F.I.R. B [Para 221(1083-G-H;1084-A] 2. The port mortem on the deceased shows as many as seven injuries. Most of the injuries were on vital parts of the body, i.e. on the head or the neck. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the testimony of the eyewitnesses PWl AND PW3. (Para 23] [1084-A-B) c 3. A perusal of testimony of PW 2 shows that he was not an eyewitness at all. His evidence regarding the incident is only hearsay and no value can be attached to the same. However, this does not detract or discredit the testimony of PW I and PW3 which is consistent with the F.I.R. version and with each other. [Para 24) [1084-C-D) D 4. The evidence of DWI is not reliable at all inasmuch as in his cross- examinations he stated that he did not lodge any complaint in writing to any authority informing the facts which he had deposed. He did not also make a complaint to anybody that he accused were falsely implicated in the case. He has mentioned that he came to know that the accused persons had been E arrested for committing the murder of deceased. If he was really of the opinion that these accused had been falsely implicated he would normally have informed the Police and and/or other persons about it. The fact that he did not do so belies his testimony. For the same reason the testimony of DW2 is also rejected. [Para 26) [1084-E-G] F 5. A perusal of the testimony of PWll, the Police Sub-Inspector at the Vairag Police Station shows that a Police report was lodged promptly and all actions were taken soon after the incident. This witness had seen lot of blood on the spot and two pieces of brain and skull and other articles. He had prepared spot Punchnama in the presence of panchwitnesses. He had collected G blood-stained soil and simpl~ soil etc. from the place of the incident. The Sub- Inspector then arrested the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 who had blood- stained clothes. Accused no.3 was interrogated in the presence of panchwitnesses and he volunteered to discover the weapon used at the time of the offence which kept under a heap of stones near the well of a field. He H volunteered to accompany the Police.to point out the same. Thereafter accused ) ~ ~ I.,, - RAJENDRA PRABHU CHI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.