AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Shinde, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants at length and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10th February, 1999 passed by the I Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 82/1998.
It is the prosecution case that:
P.W. 1 Salimoddin resident of Nashirabad was on cross terms with the accused Salimoddin and his father accused No. 2 Gulam. On 08th November, 1997 a quarrel took place between his brother Hasinoddin and daughter of accused Gulam.
On 09.11.1997 Salimoddin had been to Jalgaon for some work. At about 11.30 a.m. when he was proceeding by road and reached near Nashirabad rickshaw stop the accused persons assaulted him with knives causing injuries on chest, back, thigh, right hand and both knees. They were saying that they would kill him. He raised shouts for help, on which P.W. 4 Iqbalkhan and P.W. 6 Nasirali came there and rescued him. He was sent to Civil Hospital. The accused persons were apprehended by the witnesses and were taken to Shani Peth police station and were produced before the Police Station Officer ASI i. e. P.W. 7.
The complainant on admission at Civil Hospital was examined by the Medical Officer P.W. 5,Dr. Mrs. Kavita Sontakke. The Medical Officer found as many as nine injuries on the person of the victim. Out of these nine injuries, injury No. 7 and 8 were grievous in nature.
On receiving information about the incident P.W. 8/PI went to the Civil Hospital, and after ascertaining that the complainant is in a position to make statement, he recorded complaint at Exhibit 21 of the complainant. Offence punishable u/s ec. 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Cr. No. 40/1997 at Shani Peth Police Station. The accused persons were arrested. Necessary arrest panchanama was prepared in presence of the panchas. The knives and blood stained shirts of the accused were seized, spot panchanama was drawn, small stones having blood stains were seized by the I. O.
During the course of investigation statements of witnesses were recorded. The blood stained clothes of the complainant were seized in the same evening under panchanama Exhibit 26 before the panch witness P.W. 3/Mohd. Hayat. The muddemal articles were sent for C. A. examination. The C. A. report Exhibit 39 and 40 was received. After completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed.
The Trial Court after full fledged trial and after recording evidence convicted the accused/Appellants for the offence punishable u/s ec. 307 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer R. I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/ each and in default accused to suffer further R. I. for 9 months. Hence this appeal filed by the accused/Appellants.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that, there is inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, especially in the deposition of P.W. 6/Nasirali who has stated that no blows were given after he reached at the place of incident and the other witness by name Iqbalkhan who is cited as an eye witness has stated that he has not seen the incident since beginning. Therefore, the counsel for the Appellants submits that, the prosecution evidence is not trustworthy and reliable. The learned Counsel further submitted that, the evidence of the complainant cannot be relied upon as the same is contrary to the medical evidence. The complainant has deposed in his evidence that he received 15 to 16 blows, however, there are only 9 injuries shown in the medical certificate. The recovery of the knives from the accused is totally unbelievable, specially when the P.W.6/Naserali deposed that soon after the incident when he was going in rickshaw with accused persons the accused No. 1 has thrown the knife on the way, however, on asking to the accused, accused picked up the knife. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellants such prosecution story is totally unbelievable and unacceptable. It is further submitted that, there are discrepancies about number of persons who took the accused persons to the police station. These material discrepancies are not taken into consideration by the Trial Court. No seizure panchanama was drawn when the knives came to be seized from the accused persons. The recovery of the weapon is not proved at all. It is further submitted that, it is alleged that, the knives were taken from the pockets of the pants and were having blood stains. The pants were not seized. The entire story of the prosecution is doubtful. The shirts and weapons sent for C. A. report were not sealed at the time of seizure. It is further submitted that, out of nine injuries sustained by the complainant seven are simple in nature and two are only grievous in nature. He was indoor patient only for one day. It is further submitted that, the version of the complainant that, he was 21 days in the hospital has not been supported by the independent evidence. Seizure of the clothes of the complainant is also not proved, as he himself has stated that, at the time of recording of the statement, the clothes were not on my person, however in the next moment he states that clothes were recovered immediately after recording his statement in the hospital. The learned Counsel further submitted that, there is much inconsistency in the version of complainant and P.W. 3 on the point of seizure of clothes of complainant. When the complainant stated that his statement was recorded at about 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. and clothes were seized thereafter. The P.W. 3 deposed that the clothes were seized in his presence after he reached to the hospital i. e. after 6.00 to 6.15 p.m.. Whereas in the panchanama the time mentioned is 18.30 to 19.30 p.m. The learned Counsel further submitted that, if the evidence of complainant and other prosecution witnesses is considered, there is no consistency in their statement about how many blows are given by the accused persons. The learned Counsel further submitted that, it has come in the evidence of P.W. 4 that he was returning from the petrol pump on the motor bike at the time of incident. The counsel submitted that, it is not possible to witness the incident when the P.W. 4 was returning from the petrol pump on a motor bike. The counsel further submitted that, there is possibility that P.W. 4 has not witnessed the incident at all. The counsel further submitted that, the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 that, they have actually witnessed the incident and they were present on the spot is not believable. They are interested witnesses. They have stated in their cross examination that they know the complainant. Therefore, according to the counsel for the Appellants, their evidence being of interested witnesses cannot be believed. The learned Counsel also invited my attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of accused persons in which they have stated that, they were taken from their house to the police station. They are falsely implicated in the alleged incident. Due to harassment by the complainant and other persons they have to shift from Nashirabad to Jalgaon.
The learned Counsel further submitted that, it is the prosecution case that the recovery of the knives is from the pocket of the pant of the accused. However, said pant was not seized. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the evidence of P.W. 8 and more particularly in para 2 from his examination in chief. The counsel invited my attention to the fact that, both the accused were having injuries to their hands. They were referred to Medical Officer at Civil Hospital. This is stated by the P.W. 8/Investigating Officer. The counsel further submitted that, the Appellant No. 1''s daughter has also filed complaint against the complainant in the year 1997. The learned Counsel further submits that direct evidence is not supported by the circumstantial evidence in the present case. At the cost of repetition the counsel submitted that, there was no seizure of pant. There was no recovery of knives as contemplated u/s ec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and to that effect the Trial Court has held against the prosecution that there is no recovery from the accused/Appellants. Therefore, the counsel at the cost of repetition submits that, there are contradictions, omissions and improvements and there is no recovery from the Appellants/accused and also the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 does not inspire confidence. Therefore, counsel would submit that, this appeal deserves to be allowed.
I have given due consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. I have also gone through the original record and proceedings made available. The evidence of P.W. 1/complainant is at Exhibit 20. In his examination in chief the complainant has stated that on 08.11.1997 quarrel took place at Nashirabad between his brother Hasinoddin and daughter of Gulam Dastagir and his son. Both abused him. On the next day he came to Jalgaon for some work. At 11.30 a.m. he came near Nashirabad rickshaw stop. Both the accused persons assaulted him with knife. He received 13 blows on his chest, both hands, back, thigh and right knee. The accused were saying that they will kill him. He shouted for help. He fell down. Witnesses Ekbal and Nasir and others came there. They rescued him. He was sent to the Civil Hospital in rickshaw of Abdul Raheman. This witness has further stated that his complaint is recorded by the police persons in the hospital. His clothes were seized. He further stated that he was shifted to private hospital of Dr. Firake. He was admitted there for 21 days.
In his cross examination he has stated that one lady Medical Officer examined him. She asked history of assault. He was shifted to private hospital. He has further stated that no other person except Ekbal and Nasir was to rescue him. He was shouting for help. He has further stated that his maternal uncle filed complaint against the accused and their female relatives alleging assault with knife in 1992. They were prosecuted in the said complaint. However, said complaint ended in the acquittal. He has specifically denied the suggestion that he was not assaulted by the accused persons.
The evidence of P.W. 2 is at Exhibit 22. He has stated that on 09.11.1997 he was called to act as panch. Two knives were seized from the packet of the accused, cash of Rs. 200/ was also seized from them. Clothes were also seized. The accused Salimuddin was having bleeding injury to the thumb of right hand. Panchanama was drawn accordingly. He has stated in his cross examination that the accused persons took out the knives from their pockets.
The evidence of P.W. 3 is at Exhibit 25. In his examination in chief he has stated that, he was called at Civil Hospital by the police. A shirt and pant of complainant Salim were seized in his presence. The evidence of P.W. 4 is at Exhibit 27. In his examination in chief he has stated that the incident had taken place on 09th November, 1997 at about 10.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. He was returning from the petrol pump on a motor bike along with Sayyada Nasarali. On hearing shouts for help, he went to the spot. A quarrel was going on there. Two persons were assaulting a third person with knives. The assailants were saying that they will not leave victim alive. Myself, Nasirali and two other persons caught the assailants and the assailants were taken to the Shani Peth Police Station in a rickshaw and were handed over to the police. The person who was assaulted was bleeding. He was having injuries all over his body, on chest, hand and back. He was sent to the Civil Hospital.
In his cross examination, suggestion was given to him that he knows complainant and accordingly this witness has admitted that he is knowing the complainant before the incident.
The counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that since this witness has stated in his cross examination that he is knowing the complainant before the incident that shows that he is interested witness. Merely because P.W. 4 knows the complainant prior to the date of incident does not mean that he is an interested witness. It is true that this witness in his cross examination has stated that five to six blows of knives were given by the accused persons. However, in my opinion, this is not material contradiction.
There is evidence of P.W. 5/Dr. Mrs. Kavita Sontakke at Exhibit 29. She has stated that at the relevant time she was attached to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon as Medical Officer since 1993. On 09.11.1997 at 11.50 a.m. Sk. Salim Sk. Niyajoddin was brought to Civil Hospital by a rickshaw driver in injured condition and she examined him and found following injuries on his person.
i) Stab wound on back, throco lumber region 1 1/2" x 1/2 " muscle deep, bleeding present.
ii) Stab wound on the neck post, at the base 1"x1/2", x muscle deep, bleeding present.
iii) Stab wound, Rt. Side of chest, medially and below the Rt. Nipple 1" x 1/2", muscle deep, bleeding present.
iv) Incised wound Rt. Costal margin on chest, transversely place 3 1/2" x 1/2", muscle deep, bleeding present.
v) Incised wound right anteriorly above knee joint 4 1/2" x 1" x muscle deep, bleeding present.
vi) Incised wound left arm anteriorly at upper end obliquely placed 3 1/2" x 1" x muscle deep bleeding present.
vii) Incised wound left forearm dorsally at lower end 3 1/2" x 1" x muscles, tendons cut, active bleeding present.
viii) Incised wound left forearm at lower and ventrally 2" x 1/2" x muscle deep tendon cut, active bleeding present.
ix) Incised wound Rt. Middle and ring finger at low and, ventrally 1" x 1/2" x tenons cut, bleeding present. Ulna artery cut.
She has stated that, injury Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 were simple injuries. The injury Nos. 7 and 8 were grievous. All injuries were caused by sharp and cutting instrument and within six hours. The injured was admitted in hospital as indoor patient. On 09.11.1997 he went against medical advice on 10.11.1997. She has issued injury certificate. She has identified the signature on the said certificate before the Court. It was at Exhibit 30. She has specifically opined that injury Nos. 7 and 8 were dangerous to life, the patient would have died if he was not treated in time. Nothing has been brought by the defence on record from her cross examination so as to disbelieve her evidence. The evidence of Medical Officer not only states about the injuries sustained by the complainant, however, specific opinion is given that injury Nos. 7 and 8 were dangerous to life and in case of not receiving treatment within reasonable time, the complainant would have died. Therefore, in my opinion, the medical evidence unequivocally supports the version of the complainant. (emphasis supplied).
The counsel for the Appellants was at pains to argue that the complainant has stated in his evidence that he had received 14 blows. However, injuries sustained by the complainant are only nine in number. However, said argument is required to be rejected. Those are the minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in (2011) 1 SCC 266 in para 42 has held as under:
This Court has to keep in mind the fact that the incident had occurred on 16.05.1988 while the witnesses were examined after some time. Thus, it may not be possible for the witnesses to make statements which would be absolute reproduction of their earlier statement or line to line or minute to minute correct reproduction of the occurrence/events. The Court has to adopt a reasonable and practicable approach and it is only the material or serious contradictions/variations which can be of some consequence to create a dent in the case of the prosecution. Another aspect is that the statements of the witnesses have to be read in their entirety to examine their truthfulness and the veracity or otherwise. It will neither be just nor fair to pick up just a line from the entire statement and appreciate that evidence out of context and without reference to the preceding lines and lines appearing after that particular sentence. It is always better and in the interest of both the parties that the statements of the witnesses are appreciated and dealt with by the Court upon their cumulative reading.
Upon perusal of pars 42 of the aforesaid judgment it would make it clear that, while reading the evidence brought on record, the Court has to make endeavor to read the whole evidence brought on record in its entirety. Therefore, in my opinion, if at all there are minor contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of the witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case.
It is true that, the Trial Court has held that, there is no proper recovery of the knives as contemplated in the Evidence Act. However, the Trial Court has recorded the fact that, accused persons were arrested under panchanama Exhibit 23 and this fact is proved. This is not disputed.
At the cost of repetition, it is to be stated that the evidence of the complainant is corroborated in material particulars by the medical evidence which is overwhelming, and same has to be given due weight age. Therefore, taking into consideration entire evidence on record, in my opinion, the view taken by the I Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by his judgment and order dated 10th February, 1999 was in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the parties. On the question of sentence, the Trial Court has considered the contention of the Appellants/accused and has taken a very lenient view. They are sentenced only for three years. It is not necessary to burden this judgment by stating the scope of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Suffice it to say that, even intention to assault or to inflict the injuries itself sufficient to sustain the conviction u/s ec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. What matters is intention. In the instant case, accused/Appellants who were fully prepared went to the spot and assaulted the complainant. Therefore, in my opinion, no interference is warranted in the well written judgment and order impugned in this appeal.
Though the counsel for the Appellants submitted that, the Appellant No. 2 is aged about 80 years and lenient view may be taken, in my opinion, once the conviction is sustained, it is not permissible for this Court to reduce the sentence on the ground of age. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit, same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order stands confirmed. The bail bonds of the Appellants stand cancelled. The Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon is directed to see that the accused/Appellants surrender themselves to undergo remaining part of sentence within one week from the date of receipt of copy of judgment and order by the Supreintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon is further directed to file report of compliance through the concerned police station within four weeks from today. Needless to mention that the Registry would forward the copy of judgment and order of this appeal to the concerned Superintendent of Police for immediate action. The original Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
The counsel for the Appellants is appointed by this Court. This Court highly appreciates the sincere efforts taken by the counsel in arguing the matter and assisting this Court properly. Needless to mention that, she would be entitled for the fees as prescribed under the relevant rules.