Judgment:
1. Present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.114 of 1999, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine in the sum of Rs.500/ in default to suffer R.I. for three months. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, present appeal is filed by the appellant through jail.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that : First informant Manik (PW4) had lodged the report bearing Crime No.70 of 1999 (Exh.16) at Miraj City Police Station in respect of assault by means of knife by Anil Chandrakant Londhe (appellant herein). In the result, Shakuntala (first informant's sister), who had intervened during the exchange of words between Manik & Anil. Anil had rushed towards Manik with knife but when Shakuntala intervened Anil assaulted her on her chest and leg. In the result, she suffered death on the spot as a result of stab injuries.
3. It is case of the prosecution that first informant Manik Sapate (PW4) resided at Zharibag hutment along with his wife Gauri (PW5) and two sisters Kamal & Shakuntala (deceased). Manik had gone to Visawa hotel for cup of tea on 29.3.1999 at about 4:00 p.m. he saw Anil and Gauri at one corner. On the same day, between 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. he was proceeding towards market with Shakuntala to purchase tea powder. When they were near "DoBhai Lodge", Anil had arrived there and accosted him over the visit to Visawa hotel in noon time. Thus according to the prosecution, the incident occurred where Anil rushed towards Manik with knife and while Shakuntala had intervened.
4. Investigation was done by the police officers PW7 Ramesh and PW8 Manohar. They had recovered knife (article No.1) during the spot panchnama (Exh.11). Inquest was held over the dead body vide inquest panchnama (Exh.8). The accused was arrested. Clothes and other articles were seized from the dead body of Shakuntala (Article Nos.8 to 13). Autopsy was performed by Dr.Sujata Joshi (PW6.) in respect of which postmortem notes (Exh.19) are on record. Dr.Joshi who performed postmortem expressed opinion as to cause of death of Shakuntala as hemorrhagic shock due to injury to vital organs. She also expressed her opinion about possibility of stab injuries by means of knife (article No.1). Muddemal articles were referred to the Chemical Analyzer for investigation, in respect of which C.A. reports were received as per Exh.23 & Exh.24.
5. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Miraj by investigating officer Mr.Manohar Kulkarni (PW8). J.M.F.C. committed the case to the Sessions Court at Sangli being Sessions Case No.114 of 1999. Charge was framed at Exh.1 on 17.5.2000 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. His plea was recorded on same day i.e. on 17.5.2000. At trial prosecution relied on evidence of eight witnesses to prove its case, including, two eye witnesses Manik (PW4) & Gauri (PW5).
6. Heard the arguments of learned Advocate Mr.Apte appointed for the appellant and learned A.P . Mr.Dedhia for the State. .P
7. Learned Advocate for the appellant by taking us through the evidence on record submitted that evidence of two eye witnesses was interested and witnesses had given exaggerated version of the incident. It is also submitted that the knife was not discovered at the instance of the accused but was recovered from the shrubs during the course of spot panchnama. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. In the alternative, he submitted that accused Anil never intended to commit murder of Shakuntala and she had received injuries while she tried to intervene and, therefore, the appellant/accused may be given benefit by convicting him for lesser offence on the ground that there was no intention to commit murder.
8. On the other hand, learned A.P . for the State submitted that .P the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the direct evidence of eye witnesses in the case was also amply corroborated by circumstantial evidence on recored including medical evidence and findings by C.A. It is further contended that death of Shakuntala was homicidal and was result of stab blows given by appellant Anil on vital part of the body which resulted in her death on the spot of the incident.
9. The first question that arises is as to whether the prosecution has succeeded to prove homicidal death of Shakuntala. Looking to the evidence of PW6 in the present case, Medical Officer Dr.Sujata Joshi from Medical College Hospital, Miraj had conducted postmortem on the dead body of victim Shakuntala Sakharam Sapate on 21.3.1999 between 11:50 p.m. to 12:50 p.m.. She had noted the following external injuries :
"1. Penetrating stab wound over left infra mammary region four inches below the nipple measuring 1" X 0.25" cavity deep, bleeding, wedge shaped stab wound.
2. Stab wound of wedge shaped over right thigh lower third anterior aspect, 1" X 0.25" muscle deep, clotted, bleeding+."
PW6 Dr.Sujata Joshi further noted the corresponding internal injuries as follows :
1. Thorasic wall was torn at the site of injury No.1. Pleura was also torn at the site of injury No.1.
2. Hemothorax was present.
3. Diaphragm was torn at the site of injury No.1.
4. Haemoperitoneun was present. There was haematoma on upper third portion of descending colon.
5. Haemtoma was present on left kidney.
6. There was stab wound 1" X 0.25" over mid third portion of the left kidney anteriorly involving only the musculature of left kidney"
10. PW6 Dr.Sujata Joshi expressed opinion that the cause of Shakuntala's death was hemorrhagic shock due to injury to vital organs. The description of injury No.1, in particular, indicate that it was a penetrating stab wound over left infra mammary region about four inches below the nipple and corresponding internal injury indicated that thorasic wall was torn, pleura was also torn, hemothorax was present, diaphragm was torn. Thus indicating that the injury was on vital part. Dr.Joshi also mentioned possibility of the injuries by means of knife (article No.1) which is sharp edged on one side. She clearly expressed her opinion with reference to knife shown to her about possibility of the knife causing those injuries. This evidence as deposed by PW6 (Dr.Sujata Joshi), if read in juxtaposition of eye witnesses Manik (PW4) and Gauri (PW5) as also findings of CA report, leaves no room that victim Shakuntala met with homicidal death.
11. The next question is as to whether the prosecution succeeded to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts that appellantAnil was author of the injuries. The prosecution has mainly relied upon evidence of eye witness Manik (PW4) and Gauri (PW5). Manik (first informant) deposed that he had occasion to visit Visawa hotel earlier in the day at about 4:00 p.m. on 21.3.1999 when he saw Anil sitting in the hotel along with Gauri (wife of Manik). At that time, Anil had stared at Manik with angry mood. Later in the day, at about 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., when Manik was proceeding to the shop with his sister Shakuntala, Anil came there with Gauri and told Manik not to come in the hotel again. Anil had rushed towards Manik with knife and was about to assault Manik when Shakuntala intervened. Thus, Shakuntala had received injuries. While Anil tried to chase Gauri, Gauri ran away. Shakuntala fell down as a result of assault by knife and died. Thus, Manik ran to police station and lodged complaint (Exh.16).
12. Manik (PW4), who appears to be an illiterate witness, deposed as to how the incident had occurred whereby his sister Shakuntala had lost life. Despite searching crossexamination by the defence, eye witness Manik stood firm during his deposition while narrating the incident. In the course of his crossexamination, Manik has stated thus :
"16. It is not true that when I was about to assault Anil, my sister intervened and sustained injury. My sister fell down immediately after the assault. It is not true that I rushed to Anil with knife (Article.1). Presently, I am residing with Gauri. When the incident occurred, Gauri was residing with Anil. It is not true that I have lodged false complaint as Gauri was residing with Anil."
The crossexamination shows that presence of Anil who assaulted sister of Manik and Manik's sister fell down immediately after the assault has not been in much dispute, as also, motive of the crime that Gauri was residing with Anil and she was seen in the company of Anil prior to the incident in hotel Visawa.
13. Eye witness Gauri (PW5) is the star witness of the prosecution, who deposed against her companion Anil and clearly stated that when she along with Anil were proceeding with articles from market and when they came near "DoBhai Lodge", Manik (PW4) and Shakuntala (deceased) came there. There was exchange of words between Anil and Manik as Anil had asked Manik as to why he came to hotel when he (Anil) was with Gauri. Anil took out knife to assault Manik. Shakuntala intervened and Anil gave stab blows on chest and right leg of Shakuntala. Thereafter Anil had rushed towards Gauri with knife but she ran away and went to the shop of Agarwal. Later, she along with Manik went to police station as Shakuntala was dead and then Manik has lodged report. Gauri was crossexamined with reference to the incident, which further clarified as to what had happened. According to her when she was sitting near the shop of Agarwal, Anil came there on cycle. He told her to accompany him to ration shop. When they were proceeding towards fair price shop, Manik and Shakuntala were there near "DoBhai Lodge". The details of incident were elucidated during the course of her crossexamination which clarified further as to how there was exchange of words between Anil and Manik and Anil took out knife and rushed to assault Manik. Shakuntala intervened and received stab blows and fell down after the assault.
14. Rest of the evidence sufficiently corroborated the direct evidence of eye witnesses. Evidence of PW1 Dhiren Soni, a panch, who was present at the time of spot panchnama deposed about recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife (article No.1) from the spot has also deposed about sample of blood mixed earth and blood taken from the spot and collected from the spot during the spot panchnama Exh.11. While PW2 Mr.Vijay Kandekar deposed about recovery of clothes of the accused under panchnama (Exh.13), clothes seized from the body of the deceased Shakuntala under panchnama (Exh. 19).
15. PW3 Pradip Bhore owner of a tea stall at Gandhi Chowk, Miraj had occasion to see accused Anil chasing Gauri at the time of incident. He had also seen Anil throwing something in shrubs. He also went there and saw that it was a knife (article No.1). He had also identified the accused before the Court. Thus, there was ample corroboration to the main evidence of the incident soon after the incident of stabbing Anil tried to chase Gauri with knife and threw it in the shrubs which PW3 Pradip had occasion to witness.
16. PW7 Ramesh Bhokare (PSI, Miraj City Police Station) had done initial investigation after he recorded complaint (Exh.16). He also produced CA report (Exh.23 & Exh.24). While PW8 Manohar Kulkarni (Investigating Officer) deposed about the investigation carried out i.e. about drawing of spot panchnama Exh.11, recovery of clothes from the person of accused (Exh.13). He deposed that he has forwarded articles seized to C.A. for examination and after due investigation submitted the chargesheet.
17. Thus, the prosecution led evidence which was sufficient beyond all reasonable doubts to prove the homicidal death of Shakuntala as also that it was appellantAnil and none other who caused stab injuries on vital part which resulted in death of Shakuntala on the spot of incident itself.
18. Intention of the assailant is gathered from the nature of weapon used to commit assault; the part of the victim's body chosen; force applied; the nature of injury /injuries caused. In Manubhai v. State of Gujrat AIR 2007 SC 2437 it was observed that the accused had used knife causing injury just below the stomach (6 cm deep) which was found indicative of the fact that the blow was given with great force. It was noticed that the deceased was trying to pacify the party and no role was played by him in exchange of words, which were taken place at the spot. The trial Court had convicted the accused under Section 304 PartI of Indian Penal Code noticing a case of single blow. The High Court, in appeal, altered the conviction from Section 304 PartI to Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. In Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court by convict; the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld by the Supreme Court considering the case of injury caused by forceful blow to the deceased given by knife by the accused.
19. Coming back to the facts revealed in the present case, the appellant in the present case was armed with weapon of offence i.e. knife which he took out to assault upon Manik and when Shakuntala tried to pacify appellant, she was stabbed with two forceful blows. The conduct of the appellant after stabbing her was to chase Gauri (PW5) and thereafter to throw away blood stained knife in the shrubs. From all these facts, inescapable inference, as to intention of the offender, has to be drawn. He intended to commit murder; by means of knife which he had possessed.
20. The prosecution evidence is crystal clear that the Appellant Anil had inflicted stab blows by knife upon body of Shakuntala which were forceful enough to cause death of Shakuntala on the spot of incident itself. The medical evidence made it clear by description of external injury No.1 and corresponding internal injury No.1 described by doctor that the injury described as penetrating stab wound was on vital part. The alternative argument that the appellant intended to assault Manik but Shakuntala died because of her sudden intervention, and, therefore, Anil may be held liable for lesser offence could not pursuade us to convict the appellant for lesser offence because in our view nobody can be heard to plead an excuse on the ground that he caused death of bystander or intervenor by mistake or accident particularly when an assailant while assaulting another person was armed with dangerous weapon like knife (article No.1 in this case) and inflicted forceful stab blows on vital part of human body sufficient to cause death of another in the ordinary course of nature (in the present case on the spot of incident itself). The case is clearly covered by clause 3rdly of Section 300 of IPC and amounts to murder. Appellant Anil had inflicted stab blows causing such bodily injuries on vital part of Shakuntala which proved fatal i.e. resulted in her death on the spot of incident itself. Therefore, the appellant Anil is guilty of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In our view, the trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant for offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code because facts show that stab injuries inflicted upon victim Shakuntala resulted in instantaneous death of said victim Shakuntala. Therefore this would not leave any scope for the alternate argument that there was no intention to cause death of victim Shakuntala. Nobody can be heard to say that by inflicting stab wounds by knife on vital part of the human body, he had no intention to cause death or bodily injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. We discard this alternate argument as unacceptable and absurd.
21. Thus the above evidence would clearly show that author of the injuries was none other than the appellantAnil.
22. Looking to the entire evidence, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the findings and conclusions drawn by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli. The appellant/accused was correctly found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. No ground is made out for interference with the impugned judgment and order. Hence, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.