Judgment:
P.D. Kode, J.] :-
1. The appellant-original accused assails the judgment and order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.16 of 2006, convicting him for committing the murder of his brother Sanjay Baban Ombale and for causing disappearance of the evidence of said murder with intent to screen himself from the legal punishment for committing said murder and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further S.I. for two months for committing the offence of murder and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further S.I. for two months for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., i.e., for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder and further ordering to run both the substantive sentences concurrently.
2. According to the prosecution, the first informant Baban Maruti Ombale was residing alongwith wife Vimal, son, i.e., the appellant, his three children, another son deceased Sanjay, his three children, another son Sachin and his wife Manisha at Gogawalewadi, Taluka Koregaon, Dist. Satara. The Vimal wife of first informant had been to parental home, a fortnight prior to occurring of incident in-question on 30th April, 2005.
2.1. On 24th April,2005 the first informant alongwith the appellant, deceased and the children had been to Gogawale Wadi for pilgrimage. He was to return to Satara on 29th April 2005, after being at said place for two to four days. The appellant and deceased Sanjay roamed in the village and brought mutton for a dinner. After preparing the meal, the children slept in the courtyard after having dinner. The first informant then started discussing with the appellant and deceased regarding vegetable business. As deceased Sanjay had liquor, instead of talking properly, he started quarreling and abusing the appellant. Earlier in the afternoon, deceased had abused daughter of the appellant on petty reason. Upon the appellant questioning deceased thereon the deceased was further enraged and started further abusing the appellant. The first informant tried to pacify them and sent both of them in the house at about 23.00 hours. He also went in the house and tried to pacify them.
2.2. The appellant then brought a knife meant for cutting the onions and stabbed in the stomach of deceased. He fell down. The first informant attempted to rescue Sanjay, however, as the appellant rushed towards him, he ran away. The first informant returned to house at 12.00 noon on the next day. His granddaughter, PW-1 Aarti Ombale, i.e., daughter of the appellant apprised him that the appellant after murdering Sanjay has buried corpse near the house and left away. The first informant went to Rahimatpur Police Station and lodged the complaint Exh.43.
2.3 PW-8 API Ghanat on Station House duty at the said Police Station recorded the first information report/ complaint Exh.43 of the first informant and registered Crime No.24 of 2005 under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. against the appellant. He arrested the appellant on 30th April 2005. On 1st May, 2005, the appellant made a statement leading to the discovery of a kitchen knife and crow bar, i.e., Article Nos.8 and 7 and leading panchas and police to his house. Such articles produced by the appellant were seized by PW-8 API Ghanwat by recording the memorandum statement and discovery panchanama Exh.33 and Exh.34. He also seized bluish colour T-shirt from the house of the appellant during house search effected by drawing the panchanama Exh.39. He collected advance cause of death Certificate Exh.12 and Postmortem Notes Exh.24 from PW-2 Dr. Sandip Pawar, who had performed the postmortem upon corpse of deceased at Primary Health Center, Rahimatpur, Tal. Koregaon. PW-8 API Ghanwat at the conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koregaon against the appellant for the commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C.
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. framed against him by the Court of Sessions at Satara after the case was committed to said Court by the Committal Court.
4. The prosecution in support of its case, in addition to earlier referred three witnesses, also examined five more witnesses, i.e., PW-3 Balu Anandrao Raut, panch witness regarding exhumation of corpse under panchanama Exh.30 and for scene of offence panchanama Exh.31 in presence of Nayab Tehsildar PW-5 Devappa Kambale, PW-4 Chandrakant Patil, panch witness of memorandum statement and discovery panchanama Exh.33 and 34 respectively regarding seizure of kitchen knife Art.8 and crow bar Art.7, PW-6 Sunil Gore, panch witness regarding seizure of clothes of the appellant under panchanama Exh.39 and PW-7 Vijay Mane, panch witness regarding seizure of clothes of deceased under panchanama Exh.41.
5. The defence of the appellant was that of total denial. The appellant claimed that on the day of incident, he was not present at the spot and was at Shanivar Peth, Satara. The trial Court after assessing the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established of Sanjay having met with homicidal death and the appellant having committed the murder of Sanjay and buried his corpse for destroying the evidence of said murder and thereby the appellant having committed the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. In consonance with said finding arrived, the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated earlier.
6. Thoughtful considerations were given to the submission advanced by both sides and record of the case was carefully examined in order to ascertain the merits from the same. For the sake of brevity, instead of reproducing the submissions canvassed in detail, the submissions meriting the dilations will be discussed hereinafter while considering the relevant part of evidence.
7. Perusal of the judgment reveals that main finding arrived by the trial Court regarding deceased Sanjay having met homicidal death and same had occurred due to the injuries caused to him by the appellant is mainly based upon the evidence of PW-1 Aarti and that of PW-2 Dr. Sandip Pawar, we find it necessary to firstly consider their evidence.
8. The reference to the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Pawar reveals that while PW-2 Dr. Pawar attached to Primary Health Center, Rahimatpur, Taluka Koregaon as Medical officer, on 29th April, 2005, had carried out autopsy on the corpse of Sanjay brought to hospital by P.C. Buckle No.1530. He deposed that during the said examination, he had noticed following injuries on the corpse as recorded by him in column No.17 of Postmortem Notes, i.e., Exh.24, which are as under:
1. 10 cm deep stab on chest region on left side 6 cm medial to left breast.
2. Stab on left side of abdomen, 5 cm above umbilicus, 4 cm lateral to midline with intestine protruding out through.
3. Stab on left side 10 cm right to first stab and 3 cm below with intestine protruding through it.
4. Stab on left side 10 cm left and below 3rd stab
5. Incised wound in between 3rd and 4th.
6. Incised wound below medial to 4th stab.
9. PW-2 further deposed of having noticed head injury, i.e., incised wound as recorded in column No.19 of Postmortem Notes. He further deposed that during internal examination, he noticed stab injuries on abdomen and clots in abdominal cavity. He deposed that intestine coils were protruding through 2nd and 3rd stab injury. He deposed that all injuries noticed by him were ante-mortem injuries and the same were caused within 24 hours of his examination. He deposed that the death had ensued âdue to hypovolemic shock resulting from multiple abdominal organ injury due to stabbingâ. Upon perusal, we find that the said evidence is well corroborated by the matters recorded by Dr.Pawar in Postmortem Notes Exh.24 prepared at the time of autopsy. He also vouched for the correctness of the cause of death in the advance Certificate given by him. He further deposed that the injuries caused to the deceased were possible by knife Art.8 shown to him. He deposed that said injuries on the person of deceased would have certainly resulted into death of said deceased. The careful scrutiny of the answers given by Dr. Sandip Pawar in the cross-examination does not reveal any material was elicited during the cross-examination rendering his evidence unbelievable or unacceptable. Thus, in short, we do not find any fault in the finding arrived by the trial Court that deceased succumbed to such injuries sustained.
10. Now considering the main prosecution evidence regarding the appellant being author of said injuries, it will be necessary to scrutinize the evidence of PW-1 Aarti, the sole eye-witness, upon which the reliance is placed by the prosecution. The learned appointed counsel for the appellant tried to assail the evidence of PW-1 by stating that PW-1 being a child witness, it would be highly unsafe to rely upon her testimony. It was thrust of the learned appointed counsel for the appellant that it would be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of child witness without there being corroboration for the same. It was urged that the child witnesses due to young age are proned to be imaginative and/or proned to be tutored, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance upon their testimony. Having regard to such submission, we find it is necessary to recapitulate the legal position regarding the evidence of such witnesses.
11. In said context, the reference to the decision in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh and another, reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 786), rightly pointed out by the learned APP, reveals that in the said case after considering the law prevailing regarding the evidence of such witnesses in para Nos.7 to 13, the Apex Court was pleased to observe in para no.14 to the effectâ
â14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child had been tutored or not, can be drawn form the contents of his deposition.â
12. Now considering the evidence of PW-1 Aarti upon aforesaid guidelines, we find that trial Court while administering oath to PW-1 had taken necessary precaution by putting her certain questions in order to ascertain whether she can understand the sanctity of oath. The record of said questions made in the initial part of her deposition reveals that the trial Court has rightly arrived to the subjective satisfaction of PW-1 understanding the sanctity of oath and thereafter administered her oath. Needless to add that in said premises, her evidence being recorded under sanctity of oath, presumption of truth would be available for such evidence given on oath unless the same is found repelled from the circumstances denoted by her evidence. We may add that after perusal of evidence, we do not find any such embellishment destroying such presumption of truth available for the evidence given under the sanctity of oath.
13. Now considering her deposition, we find that after deposing about her relationship and the family background, she deposed that at the relevant time, she was studying in VIIth standard. She also deposed that her uncle Sachin was residing at Satara and deceased Sanjay was also her uncle. She also deposed that her uncles though residing at Satara had been to Gogawalewadi for Yatra.
14. In material part of her evidence about the events occurred in the night in-question, after deposing regarding mutton being brought, dinner being cooked and themselves having the same, she deposed that on fateful day, in the afternoon due to falling of a grains from her hands, deceased had abused her. She further deposed that after dinner they had slept in the courtyard of the house. The appellant and uncle Sanjay were talking with each other. She further deposed that due to loud voice made by both of them, she woke-up from sleep. She heard shouts of the appellant and her uncle Sanjay. She deposed that her uncle had consumed liquor. She deposed thereafter her father/appellant carried a knife from the house, herself and her grand-father tried to intervene, but her father/appellant had pushed them. She further deposed that thereafter her father-appellant gave blows of knife in stomach of Sanjay. Her uncle Sanjay fell down. Thereafter she alongwith other small children went away from the spot. She deposed that at the time of incident electricity was in working condition and she had seen the incident in the light. She added that her grandfather also ran away from the spot. She further deposed that they slept in the adjacent house. Thereafter, the appellant dug one pit near the corner of house and buried the dead body in the said pit. She deposed thereafter her father went to Satara. Her grandfather lodged the complaint against her father-appellant with the police. The police had been to the spot and made inquiry with her and she had narrated about the incident to the police. She deposed that whereabouts of her father were traced out and he was taken in custody. The police removed the dead body from pit and sent for postmortem. She identified the appellant as being her father. She further deposed that her grandfather is no more and died on 5.4.2006.
15. Thus careful scrutiny of her deposition and particularly the answers given by her during cross-examination does not reveal that her evidence was shaken in any manner. During said answers though she admitted that there were talks of deceased Sanajy having committed murder of his wife, the same was not reality. She was candid enough to admit that Sanjay was addicted to liquor. She also admitted that the quarrel had taken place in between Sanjay and villagers from Shirdhon at the time of Pilgrimage. She denied that at the time of incident, her father was at Satara. She clarified in the cross-examination that on next day morning at about 6.30 a.m., she had seen her father-appellant burying the body of uncle Sanjay.
16. Thus after the close scrutiny of cross-examination of PW-1, we find any other embellishment except the fact of herself and her grandfather having attempted to intervene was not told by her to the police. Since the statement of witness being not expected to be an encyclopedia containing all details and PW-1 having not staked any claim of them having sustained any injuries, we are unable to give any undue significance to such trifle omission, which is not at all in the nature of any contradiction. Needless to add we do not find any embellishment or any matter indicating that she had given the evidence due to tutoring. Thus in light of the aforesaid test, we find that no error was committed by the trial Court in relying upon the evidence of PW-1 Aarti and it is also to some extent is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 regarding the injuries noticed by him on the abdomen of the deceased. We further add that as indicated in further part of the judgment, we also find that her evidence is also found corroborated by other evidence. Thus acceptance of her evidence and considering the same in conjunction with the evidence of PW-2, we are unable to find any fault with the finding arrived by the trial Court regarding the appellant being author of the injuries caused to deceased and the same having been resulted into death of his brother Sanjay and as such death of his brother being of a homicidal nature.
17. Resultantly, we further add that considering the evidence of PW-1 as a whole and same being found corroborated upon the relevant aspect by the evidence of PW-2 and so also the evidence of other witnesses and the same not denoting any element of tutoring. We do not find any substance in the submission canvassed by the learned appointed counsel for the appellant that the trial Court erred in accepting and relying upon the evidence of PW-1 for arriving conclusion about the guilty of appellant.
18. After the perusal of evidence of PW-3 Balu Raut, the panch for exhuming the body nearby the house of the first informant, we find that his evidence is more so in confirmity with the matters recorded in the panchanama Exh.30 relating to occurring at such event. His evidence reveals that the police removed the earth and took out the corpse of deceased in presence of first informant from the place, which was pointed out by the first informant. He also deposed that one quilt lying in the house of the first informant containing bloodstains was seized by the police and so also bloodstained earth and simple earth from the place of incident. After careful perusal of the cross-examination of said witness, we do not find that core of his testimony was shaken in any manner. Needless to add that his evidence reveals that the dead body was removed from the place, which was shown by the first informant nearby his house.
19. The reference to evidence of PW-5 Devappa Kamble, Nayab Tehsildhar also reveals that occurrence of such event and himself being present at the said place while exhuming the body. Without unnecessarily dilating about his evidence, we record that his evidence is duly corroborated by Report Exh.37 given by him and the same also corroborates the evidence of PW-3 and so also the evidence of PW-8 upon relevant aspects. Needless to add that the said evidence in turn also corroborates the evidence of PW-1.
20. Now considering the evidence of PW-4 Chandrakant Patil, the panch for memorandum and seizure panchanama, i.e. at Exh.33 and 34, and relevant part of the evidence of PW-8 regarding said respect, we find that by the said evidence the prosecution has duly established that the appellant while in custody of the police in presence of PW-4 and another panch had made a disclosure that he had concealed kitchen knife and one crow bar and the said statement was recorded by drawing memorandum statement Exh.33. The said evidence further reveals that thereafter the appellant led the panchas and PW-8 to his house and produced crow bar Art.7 and knife Art.8 from the place of concealment. It reveals that the police having seized the same by completing further discovery and seizure panchanama Exh.34.
21. The prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of PW-6 Sunil Gore regarding seizure of the clothes of the appellant under seizure panchanama Exh.39 and evidence of PW-7 Vijay Mane, regarding seizure of the clothes of the deceased under panchanama Exh.41. After careful perusal of the evidence of both witnesses, so also the evidence of PW-8, we do not find any embellishment for not accepting said evidence, which in turn establishes that on 1.5.2005, PW-8 had taken house search of the house of the appellant and during said search, he had seized bloodstained T-shirt Art.9 from the said house. It also reveals that the first informant had given consent for taking such house search. We do not find any significant material elicited during cross-examination of PW-6 or that of PW-8 for not accepting such evidence of PW-6 and PW-8. Same is the position in regards to evidence of PW-7, which in turn considered along the evidence of PW-8 reveals that at Rahimatpur Police Station on 30.4.2005 under panchanama Exh.41, police had seized jeans pant Art.6 containing dry blood stains upon it.
22. In the context of aforesaid evidence, the unchallenged part of the evidence of PW-8 reveals that he has sent mudemaal articles seized during the investigation to Chemical Analyser alongwith forwarding letter Exh.48 and collected C.A. Reports pertaining to same at Exh. 49 to 51. The matters stated in C.A. Report Exh.49 reveals that out of said articles, upon the earth, quilt seized from the house and from the ditch, jeans pant of the deceased and T-shirt of the appellant and knife, human blood was found. Though it is true that the Chemical Analyser was not able to determine the group of the said blood or group of blood samples of the appellant and that of the deceased sent to him, still finding of a human blood upon such articles corroborates the evidence of PW-1 and so also assures truthfulness of the prosecution case.
23. Resultantly, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we do not find any error was committed by the trial Court in coming to the conclusion of the appellant being author of injuries caused to the deceased and one which has resulted into his death. We are of such opinion, had such a conclusion flows from the prosecution evidence, which we have discussed in length hereinabove.
24. The learned appointed counsel by meticulously taking us to the first information Report Exh.43 taken on record through the evidence of PW-8, due to the first informant having expired prior to the trial, tried to canvass that even accepting the aforesaid prosecution evidence and the appellant being author of the injuries caused to the deceased resulting into his death, still he cannot be said to have committed the offence of murder. In the said context, the learned counsel by laying finger upon Report Exh.43 urged that same clearly reveals that as deceased was under influence of liquor, he was not properly talking with the appellant and was quarreling and abusing the appellant. He urged that further part of first information report reveals that upon the appellant questioning the deceased regarding abuses given by him to PW-1, deceased was further enraged and has abused the appellant. She canvassed that further part of first information report further reveals that first informant had told both of them for not quarreling and sent them in the house. She further urged that further part reveals that thereafter the appellant had taken knife meant for cutting the onions and stabbed deceased. The learned appointed counsel urged that all the said facts denote that the case of the appellant would be covered either by Exception 1 or Exception 4 of Section 300 of I.P.C. and as such the offence occurred on the part of the appellant would not transcend beyond the offence under Section 304 of I.P.C either Part-II or Part-I.
25. After giving anxious thoughts to said submission advanced, we are unable to accept the same. It is indeed true that in event of matters falling in the exception referred by the learned Counsel, the matter would have been not the offence of murder, but the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C.. However, in order to arrive at conclusion that all the acts committed by the appellant would fall within the four corners of the said exception, can be determined only on the basis of substantive evidence available on record. As observed earlier, the first informant being dead and the first information Report Exh.43 filed by him being taken on record for limited purpose, the same cannot be equated with substantive evidence. At the most the recitals from said Report will lead to the conclusion of such matters being told by the first informant to PW-8. It is trite law that the matters told being not substantive evidence regarding proof of said matters, the recourse made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the recitals in Exh.43 would be of no use to her.
26. Admittedly, in the instant case, except PW-1 there being no other eye-witnesses, the reference to the evidence of other witnesses would not be helpful to her. Now considering the evidence of PW-1, we are unable to find any substantive evidence in her evidence leading to conclusion that the appellant was deprived of the powers of self control due to grave and sudden provocation given by the deceased at the time of occurrence of the incident for falling the case of the appellant within the Exception-1 or there existing a sudden fight in between the appellant and the deceased for invoking the Exception-4 of Section 300 of I.P.C. After careful scrutiny of evidence of PW-1 except an isolated recital that due to loud voice made by both, she woke-up, there exist no materials on record for coming to legitimate inference of either the appellant being deprived of powers of self control due to grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased or a free fight having ensued in between both of them, we are unable to accept the submissions canvassed. In the premises aforesaid, we are unable to find any fault with the finding arrived by the trial Court of the appellant having committed murder of his brother Sanjay and so also the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C as observed by us.
27. Resultantly, we do not find any merits in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal, is dismissed and accordingly disposed of.
28. However, we appreciate the enthusiasm and preparation made by the learned counsel Mrs. Nasreen Ayubi Advocate appointed for the appellant in arguing the Appeal and assisting us for arriving at a conclusion, we quantified her fees to the extent of Rs.2200/-.
29. The appellant being in prison, Registry to forward copy of Judgement to him through Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Prison where the appellant is lodged.