:
1 This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned 3rd Additonal Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 183 of 1996.
2 It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant police Head Constable Mohammad Khan, B.No. 843 was attached to police station, Itwara, Nanded in the year 1995. P.W.6 Kamalbai Gupta and 8 to 10 other persons from Vinkar colony Nanded had filed a complaint against the appellant Sk. Khaja with police station, Nanded on 10.3.1995 alleging that the accused is demanding ransom and threatening the public. Therefore, P.W.7 police Inspector, Surendra Mandhane who was police Station Officer of police station, Itwara, Nanded ordered the complainant P.W.2 to bring accused Sk. Khan in the police station for enquiry in connection with the complaint filed by P.W.6 Kamalbai Gupta and others against the accused. Complainant, P.W.2 Mohammad Khan Pathan and his colleagues namely P.W.3 Nandkumar Pande and other police staff tried to search out accused on 10.3.1995, but they could not search out the accused on that day. On 11.3.1995, at about 8.00 a.m. complainant Mohamed Khan Pathan and P.W.3 police Head Constable Nandkumar Pande received an information that accused Sk. Khaja is present in Ram Rahim Nagar, Nanded. Therefore, P.W.2 complainant Mohammad Khan Pathan, P.W.3 Police Head Constable Nandkumar Pande, P.W.5 Police Constable Suresh Jakkawad alongwith some other police constables and Home guards went to Ram Rahim Nagar, Nanded in order to caught hold the accused Sk. Khaja. After noticing the complainant and his colleagues i.e. the police staff in Ram Rahim Nagar, Nanded, accused ran away towards Madina Nagar, Nanded and entered into a Masjid at Madina Nagar. The complainant Mohd. Pathan and his colleges chased the accused and entered into the said Masjid in order to caught hold the accused. The complainant was leading to police party at that time. When complainant Mohd. Pathan was trying to caught hold accused, accused attacked on the complainant and assaulted complainant Mohd. Pathan by Gupti. The accused was intending to assault the complainant by Gupti on his head, but the complainant received the blow of Gupti on his right shoulder by avoiding the blow on his head. Thereafter, P.W.3 police Head Constable Nandkumar Pande and other police staff over powered the accused and caught hold the accused. P.W.5 police constable, Suresh Jakkawad snatched Gupti from the accused. Then the complainant and his colleges brought accused Sk. Khan to police station, Itwara, Nanded and produced him before police station Officer. In the month of March, 1995 the provisions of Section 37 of Bombay Police Act were in force throughout Nanded district. Then the complainant Mohd. Pathan lodged his complaint against the accused in the police station Itwara. On the basis of complaint filed by complainant offences punishable under Sections 305 353 of I.P.C. and offence punishable under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act came to be registered against accused vide crime No. 45 of 1995 with police station, Itwara, Nanded.
It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.7 Police Inspector Surendra Mandhane Investigated into the said crime. During the course of investigation, he visited the place of incident on 11.3.1995 and prepared panchnama of place of incident (Exh.25) in presence of the panchas in between 10.35 to 11.15 a.m. He referred the complainant police Head Constable Mohammad Khan Pathan to Civil Hospital, Nanded for medical examination. He seized the muddemal article Gupti and also arrested the accused and accordingly drew panchnama Exh.29 in presence of panchas. He recorded statements of the witnesses. After completion of usual investigation he filed present charge sheet against the accused in the Court of the 4th Judicial Magistrate, First Class Nanded.
3 Since the offence was punishable under Section 307, the same was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the Sessions Court at Nanded after recording the evidence and after hearing the rival submissions has convicted the accused Shaikh Khaja Shaikh Dawood under Section 235 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332 of I.P.C. and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the police personnel, without any justification, reason, cause suspicious, or any complaint which was never registered as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, tried to arrest the appellant on the aforesaid date. This fact is amply clear from the evidence of P.W.7 that P.W.7 in cross examination admits that "On 11.3.1995 before registration of present crime, on that day no other crime was registered against accused in police station, Itwara, Nanded. He further submits that P.W. 7 P.I. Mandhane in his evidence nowhere claims that he orally directed at any point of time his police staff/personnel to arrest the present accused. He submits that in fact the P.W.7 does not state that he has received any complaint from P.W.6 give any direction to arrest the accused. He therefore, submits that the action on the part of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is without any order from the superior officer that too when the superior Officer P.W.7 Mandhane is totally silent on the aforesaid facts.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the charge under Section 332 of the I.P.C. is not at all supported by any material or evidence in respect of any legal duty on P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 to arrest the appellant, in respect of any complaint or F.I.R. already registered and any appraisal by the prosecution witnesses of the appellant about the expediency of appellant's arrest. In support of his aforesaid contention counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Chattaiah v. State of A.P.
Reported in 1978 AIR SC1441.
Counsel for the appellant further submits that the injury caused to the P.W.2 is simple in nature by hard and blunt object having contusion 4 cm x 3 cm. He submitted that the P.W.1 has specifically admitted in cross examination that the injury is possible due to fall on hard and rough surface or object. This defence of appellant is probable for the reason that the spot panchnama reveals that the surface of Masjid is rough muddy and floored with paving stone and P.W.2 might have sustained injury by fall on the rough surface mentioned in the panchnama. He further submitted that the fact of avoidance of blow on his head is never spoken by P.W.5 Jakkawad and P.W.6 Kamalbai Gupta, who are alleged to have been eye witnesses to the said incident. The fact of avoidance of blow on his head is not corroborated by P.W.5 and P.W.6. In the evidence of P.W.6 she is totally silent on assault by Gupti on P.W.2. On the contrary, she simply says that, "accused assaulted complainant Head Constable Pathan by help of Gupti on his right shoulder".
Counsel for the appellant submits that taking the case of the prosecution as it is, there are absolutely no circumstances establishing any inference that the accused intended to kill P.W.2 Mohammad Khan. Such knowledge and intention on the part of the accused thus cannot be inferred on these circumstances taken as it is. For applying Section 307, three ingredients are required as provided under Section 300 of I.P.C. In support to this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1965 SC 843.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has falsely involved the appellant in the present case without any justification. The story of seizure Gupti from blunt side is developed only after receiving the medical certificate (Exh.20) and all the same medial certificate does not establish use of Gupti as weapon of assault. He further submitted that there is no seizure of clothes of P.W. 2 which is blood stained.
Counsel further submitted that the basic ingredients of Section 307 of I.P.C. are intention and knowledge to the accused are totally absent from the above factual narration for the reasons that the injury is simple. P.W.2 and P.W.3 admitted that accused assaulted from the blunt side of Gupti. The injury is not on vital part. He submits that there are no circumstances indicating the intention of the appellant to commit an offence under Section 307.
Counsel further submits that at the most and even taking the case of the prosecution as it is, the offence at the most would fall under Section 323 of I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that no ingredients of offence under Section 307 and 332 of I.P.C. are made out. In the background of these circumstances, he prays that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the appellant may kindly be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
5 Learned A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that the Sessions Court has recorded the findings in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, learned A.P.P. would submit that this criminal appeal is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
6 With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. I have careful perused the evidence of each of the witnesses and also medical evidence and other evidence which is part of the trial court record.
7 P.W.2 is the complainant Mohd. Khan Nisar Ahmed Khan Pathan, in the year 1995, he was attached to police station Itwara and was also working as Police Head Constable. There were other police constables viz. Kendre, B.No.1098, Jakkawad B.No. 1603, Sondare B.No. 1527 and police Head Constable Pande B. No. 628, attached to police station Itwara, Nanded. One Mandhane was working as Police Inspector in the said police station.
8 On 10.3.1995, one Kamalbai Gupta and some others had filed a complaint against the accused in the police station Itwara, Nanded alleging that accused Shaikh is demanding ransom and threatening them. The police Inspector, Mandhane ordered the complainant and other police staff for arresting and bringing the accused Shaikh Khan in the police station in connection with complaint lodged by P.W.6 Kamalbai Gupta. P.W.2 complainant has deposed in his evidence that on 10.3.1995, he himself and his colleagues police persons working in police station Itwara, Nanded took search of accused but he could not found out him. On 11.3.1995, they received an information that the accused is present in Ram Rahim Nagar, Nanded. Therefore, the complainant, police Head Constable Pande and police constable Kendre, Jakkawad had been to Ram Rahim Nagar, Nanded in order to arrest the accused Shaikh Khaja at about 8.30 a.m. Accused Shaikh Khaja after noticing the complainant and other police persons ran away towards Madina Nagar, Nanded. The complainant alongwith other persons chased the accused. Accused entered in a Masjid in
Madina Nagar. The complainant alongwith other police persons and home guards also entered into the said Masjid in order to arrest the said accused. It is stated by P.W.2 complainant Mr. Pathan in his deposition thus:-
" When I was trying to arrest the accused Shaikh Khaja he attacked on me and assaulted me by Gupti. I received blow of Gupti on my right shoulder. The accused was intending to assault me on my head but I avoided assault on my head. My colleagues police persons and home guards immediately caught hold the accused. Police Constable Jakkawad snatched Gupti from the accused. Thereafter, we brought the accused Shaikh Khaja to police station, Itwara, Nanded by police jeep and produced him before P.S.O. Thereafter, I lodged complaint against the accused Shaikh Khaja in respect of assault by him on me. The complaint dated 11.3.1995 filed by me against the accused in police station Itwara now shown to me is the same."
9 The complainant has identified the signature on the said complaint and also identified the Muddemal article No.1 Gupti before the trial court. The complainant has also identified the accused Shaikh Khaja before the court. The complainant has further stated in his deposition before the Court that he was referred to Civil Hospital, Nanded for medical examination on 11.3.1995. The P.W.2 complainant has stated in his deposition that the accused assaulted him by Muddemal Article Gupti from its blunt edge of blade.
10 There is evidence of Medical Officer P.W.1. In his examination in chief, the Medical Officer has stated that upon clinical examination of patient Mohd. Khan Pathan he found contusion having dimensions 4 cms x 3 cms on right shoulder. It was simple in nature probably caused by hard and blunt object within 6 hours.
11 Therefore, in the instant case, there is evidence of complainant corroborated by the evidence of Medical Officer. The prosecution has also placed on record injury certificate. It appears that the incident in question took place at about 9.15 a.m. and immediately the complainant was referred to P.W.1 Medical Officer at about 12.30 p.m. within six hours from the time of the incident. On perusal of evidence of other witnesses, it emerges that other police constables and more particularly P.W.3 has stated in his evidence that the accused intended to assault on the head of complainant P.W.2 Pathan. However, the complainant managed to escape assault on head, however said assault was landed on right shoulder of the complainant. Therefore, the trial court taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the medical evidence and evidence of P.W.3 had reached to the conclusion that the accused intended to assault on head of the complainant by dangerous weapon like Gupti and therefore, Section 307 of I.P.C. is attracted in the present case. In addition to this, there is also evidence of other witness P.W.5 to support the case of the prosecution that there was assault by the accused on the complainant. P.W.5 has stated in his evidence that the weapon Gupti was snatched by him from the accused. This statement of P.W.5 has been supported by other witnesses including P.W.2, P.W.3 that the weapon Gupti was snatched by P.W.5 from the accused. Upon perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court, it appears that the said findings are in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
12 The arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant that the complainant alongwith other police constables and home guards went to arrest the accused without lodging formal complaint or without any arrest warrant is required to be examined in the light of the deposition of P.W.2 before the Court. P.W.2 has stated in his statement before the Court that the P.W.6 Kamalbai Gupta did lodge the complaint in Itwara police station and the complainant alongwith other police constables took search of accused on 10.3.1995. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of the counsel for the appellant that there was no complaint in the police station. The superior Officer of the complainant directed the complainant and other police constables to take search of the accused and if necessary arrest him. In pursuant to the said directions, the complainant and other police Officers were acting and accordingly they took search on 10.3.1995. However, they were not successful in tracing out the accused, therefore, again they went to search and arrest the accused on 11.3.1995. It is contention of the counsel for the appellant that the recovery of weapon Gupti from the accused is falsified by the evidence of panch because the panch witness in his statement said that Gupti was already lying on the table of the police station Officer and panchnama was also prepared and only he has signed the panchnama. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that even according to the investigating Officer, the Gupti was already lying on the table, therefore, the said recovery of Gupti from accused is concocted story and in fact the weapon Gupti was never recovered from the accused. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is required to be negatived. It is not the case that said weapon Gupti was recovered at the instance of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution, as appeared in the substantial evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant that said weapon Gupti was snatched by P.W.5 from the accused after he assaulted the complainant on his shoulder. Therefore, when there is evidence of eye witnesses to the said incident and snatching of Gupti from the accused by P.W.5, there is no force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant that there is no recovery of alleged weapon Gupti from the accused.
13 Learned counsel for the appellant also tried to attack the evidence of complainant and also evidence of Medical Officer and P.W.3 and P.W.5 on the ground that if their evidence is taken into consideration in its entirety, it reaches to the conclusion that the appellant accused assaulted the complainant from blunt side of Gupti and therefore, he had no intention to kill the complainant. In my opinion, as rightly concluded by the trial court that accused had intention to assault on the head of the complainant as appeared in the evidence of complainant which is corroborated by evidence of P.W.3 However, the complainant could escape from assault on the head which subsequently landed on the right shoulder of the complainant. Therefore, it is abundantly clear from evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 that the appellant accused had intention to assault on the head of the complainant and the blow from blunt side of the weapon could have caused death of the complainant. Even from blunt side of the weapon if it is on head, it can cause death of the person, therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that all witnesses have stated in their evidence that attack was from blunt side and therefore, case does not fall under Section 307 of I.P.C. is required to be rejected.
14 The consistent evidence of witnesses who are from police department that the assault by the accused on the complainant was from blunt side of the weapon shows their truthfulness. The evidence of complainant is corroborated by Medical evidence. It is true that the injury sustained by the complainant is simple in nature, however, merely because the said injury is simple in nature cannot take away the case of the prosecution from Section 307 of I.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider such contention in the case of State of M.P. v. Kashiram and others, reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 107. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, in para 10 and 12 has observed thus:" 10. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
12 Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury. "
15 Therefore, whether the injury is simple or grievous in nature hardly matters to invoke the provisions of Section 307. The intention coupled with some other act is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 307 of I.P.C. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no force in the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant that the case in hand at the most would fall under Section 323 of I.P.C.
16 Another contention of the counsel for the appellant is that though the witnesses have stated that as a result of injury sustained by the complainant there appears some blood stains on the shirt of the complainant is not supported by seizure of the said shirt by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution and also the appellant is required to be considered from the material available on record. Therefore, what is not available on the record is not required to be considered. Suffice it to say that the medial evidence in the nature of medical certificate and deposition of P.W.1 Medial Officer is placed on record by the prosecution.
17 Another contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the complainant and other police persons were not discharging their duties in their official capacity and therefore Section 332 of I.P.C. is not attracted in the present case. In fact it has come in the evidence of the complainant and also other police constables i.e. P.W.3 and P.W.5 and other witnesses that they were in their official uniform, they were following directions given by the Investigating Officer of the said police station. Thereof, they were discharging their duties in their official capacity. The assault by the appellant accused on the complainant was while discharging his official duties, which requires to be taken very seriously and rightly the trial court has concluded that the appellant is not only liable to be convicted under section 307 of I.P.C. but he is also liable to be convicted under Section 332 of I.P.C.
18 The next contention of the counsel for the appellant that P.W.6 is not stated in her evidence that the accused was holding Gupti in his hand and therefore, the evidence of prosecution is required to be rejected. Since other witnesses are from police department and being interested witnesses their evidence can not be relied upon. The said contention is required to be rejected for the simple reason that while appreciating the evidence on record it has to be seen that who can be natural witness for the said incident. It has come in the evidence of complainant and P.W.3 and P.W.5 that they were deputed by the concerned Investigating Officer to search accused and if necessary to arrest him. Therefore, they were together for searching the appellant accused, therefore, the present of P.W.3 and P.W.5 at the spot of incident was natural since it was their collective responsibility to search the accused as per the directions of their superior. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2007) 14, SCC150 held thus:" It is no doubt true that there is only one eyewitness who is also a close relative of the deceased viz. his son. It is the quality and not the quantity of the evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving the fact. It is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality or witnesses. Neither the legislature (Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be a particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses."
Therefore, though the counsel for the appellant was at pains to submit that other police constable P.W.3 and P.W.5 are interested witnesses, in my opinion, their presence at the spot was natural and they were not interested witnesses. Therefore, their evidence has been rightly believed by the trial court. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence to show that the complainant alongwith other police persons and for that matter the Itwara police was behind the accused to arrest him by hook or crook. Nothing in that respect has been brought on record by the defence and there is no reason why the police persons discharging their duties in their official capacity in uniform should not be believed. In my opinion, this is not a routine case. There is assault by the appellant accused on P.W.2 appellant constable Pathan while discharging his official duty. What is required to be seen is the public confidence in the system either the administrative or judicial system. Though the counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the complainant has sustained the simple injuries therefore, in the facts of the case, this Court may consider to reduce the sentence as already undergone by the accused appellant. I have given serious consideration to these submissions of the counsel of the appellant, however, in the facts of this case, the said contention cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme court has observed in the case of State of M.P. v. Kashiram (supra) in para 13 that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 to 17 of the said judgments held thus:-
"15. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
16 Imposing of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality of futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
17 The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal".
18 Therefore, in the light of what is stated herein above and in addition to the findings recorded by the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the applicant-accused does not deserve any leniency. The trial court after taking into consideration entire evidence on record hass convicted the appellant-accused under Section 307 of I.P.C. by imposing five years imprisonment. Therefore, the trial court has maintained the balance. The trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 332 of I.P.C. and therefore, in my opinion, judgment and order impugned in this appeal needs no interference and the same is confirmed. The appeal is devoid of any merits and same stands dismissed. Needless to mention that bail granted to the appellant/accused stands cancelled.
19 It is reported by the counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. that in pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 20.12.2010, the appellant accused is arrested by the police persons. Therefore, it appears that the applicant-accused is already taken in custody by police persons. Therefore, he should directly be sent to jail to serve remaining period of his sentence, as ordered by the learned Sessions Court at Nanded, by the impugned judgment and order.