Wilson Agnel Fernandes vs State

U.D. Salvi, J.—These are the appeals challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao convicting the appellants/Accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar, Accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Sessions Case No. 14/1998 and further sentencing them on each count as under on 12.09.2003:

(i) for life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-each and in default thereof to undergo S.I. for six months on the first count i.e., for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code;

(ii) and for three months rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 3000/-each and in default thereof to undergo S.I. for three months on the second count i.e., for an offence punishable u/s 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, one Vinit Bindal, owner of super market situate at KTC Bus Stand at Panaji, and his driver Maruti Jadhav proceeding to Belgaum via Anmod Ghat in Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. GA-01-C-3976 in the morning of 29.3.1998 were waylaid and assaulted near Goa � Karnataka border in Anmod Ghat by the present appellants/accused and their accomplice one Videsh Malwankar with sharp edged weapons such as knives; and as a result of such assault the said Vinit Bindal was fatally wounded and robbed off his personal belongings namely ornaments, wrist watch and cash amount, and his body was thrown in a ravine and, thereafter, efforts were made to wipe out the evidence of the offence committed; and the driver of the jeep Maruti Jadhav, believing him to be dead, was left at the spot. Providentially, according to the prosecution, the driver of the jeep Maruti Jadhav managed to crawl out of the said Tata Sumo jeep for seeking help of the passers by, and was eventually brought to Morlem Check Post in the same jeep by three persons, namely Shrikant Dessai, his friend Dnyaneshwar Sawant and Vilas Varade; and on the way to Morlem Check Post the injured driver Maruti Jadhav had revealed such material facts to his savers Mr. Shrikant Dessai and his two friends; and thereafter the facts were reported to Head Constable Mhapsekar at Morlem Check Post and the injured Maruti Jadhav was firstly removed to I.D. Hospital at Ponda and thereafter to Goa Medical College at Bambolim for medical treatment.

It is the prosecution case that Head Constable Mhapsekar reported the matter to PSI Manjunath Dessai at Colem Police Station, whereupon PSI Manjunath Dessai accompanied by Constable Chandrakant proceeded to the spot and had noticed Head Constable Naik of Ramnagar Police Out Post taking measurements at the spot; and this lead him to assume that the matter was being looked into by Ramnagar Police Out Post lying within the limits of Ganeshpuri Police Station, Karnataka, and as such on returning to Collem Police Station, PSI Manjunath Dessai flashed a wireless message to Ganeshpuri Police Station requesting for further action in the matter. On the same day, the prosecution revealed, the brother in law of the deceased and others went in search of the deceased Vinit Bindal but could not succeed in their mission due to darkness; and on the next day on resumption of the search in the morning could locate the dead body of the Vinit Bindal in ravine and had thereafter reported the said facts to Collem Police Station at about 1.00 p.m., on 30.3.1998.

At this point of time, the prosecution reveals, a complaint leading to the present case came to be registered by ASI Raut Dessai at Crime No. 18/1998 dated 30.3.1998 at Collem Police Station against the appellants/accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and two others.

The prosecution case further unfolds the facts that after having set the law in motion with the registration of the crime at the crime No. 18/1998 u/s 302 read with Section 34 against the appellant/accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and two others on 30.3.98 at Collem Police Station, the police visited the spot of offence and made observations, drew the sketch of the spot of offence and collected therefrom blood soaked soil, plain soil, blue colour shirt, three buttons, visiting cards, black colour knife handle, yellow pen and spanner. Body of the deceased Vinit Bindal with several injuries was found lying in the ravine at about 84 feet away from the Goa � Karnataka high way. Inquest over the body of the deceased was held at the spot. Tyre marks of the sumo vehicle were also noticed.

In the meantime PSI Manjunath Dessai had made entry in the station diary at about 9.15 a.m., on 29.3.98 at Collem Police Station regarding the facts reported to him by HC Chandrakant Gawas, which reflected the name of the appellant/accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar, driver of sumo No. GA-01-C-6695 as an assailant of the injured victim Maruti Jadhav, driver of the sumo jeep GA-01-C-3516. Search for the assailants and the jeep involved in the crime was commenced. This led the police to sumo jeep used in the crime and its owner Mr. Petricio D�Souza who was running a lodge under name and style of Lavista Lodge at Panaji.

Statements of Mr. Petricio D''Souza, injured victim Maruti Jadhav and others were recorded. Post mortem examination of the body of the deceased Vinit Bindal was performed. The clothes of the deceased Vinit Bindal, injured victim Maruti Jadhav were duly seized. Blood scrappings and blood soaked seat covers were seized from Tata sumo vehicle registration No. GA-01-C-6695 used in crime and the vehicle was attached. Blade of knife stained with blood were recovered from the Sumo jeep No. GA-01-C-3976 driven by the injured victim Maruti Jadhav. This vehicle was also attached.

Search for the culprits initially led to arrest of the appellant/accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar on 13.4.98. According to the prosecution, 15 days old injury was found on the left knee of the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar; and in course of his interrogation the appellant/accused No. 1 Suresh Nair made a statement and in pursuance thereto had made discovery of blood stained clothes namely pant and T-shirt and cash amount of Rs. 4,900/-as the booty in the crime. Two letters purportedly written to one Maya and Rajan (Rajath) were produced by the appellant/accused No. 1 Suresh Nair before the police.

Eventually, the appellant/accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was apprehended by the police on 5.6.98. He too, the prosecution revealed, was found with old injury mark on his right leg and had made discovery of (1) blood stained knife with its blade embedded in the heap of mud near one Matti tree (jungle tree) standing at some distance away from a right side road going to Mollem some three kms from Mollem check post and (2) blood stained red T-shirt worn by him at the time of the crime. Gold ornaments, Vespa Scooter bearing No. GDD � 9648 purchased from the booty in the crime, the prosecution further revealed, were also recovered in the course of the investigation. A letter purportedly written by A-2 Wilson Fernandes to his fianc�e Fatima was recovered from the dicky of the scooter.

Specimen hand writing of A-1 Suresh Nayar and A-2 Wilson Fernandes were collected and sent to the hand writing expert along with documents recovered in the course of evidence for fixing the identity of the author of handwriting/s noticed in the documents recovered in the course of investigation. Seized articles were also sent to CFSL for further scientific investigation. The injured victim identified the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes and the co accused Videsh Malwankar in T.I. Parades conducted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Faria on 27.6.1998 and 16.11.1998 respectively.

After completion of the investigation the appellant/accused along with the co-accused Videsh Malwankar were charge sheeted for the commission of the offence u/s 302, 307, 201 IPC r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 before J.M.F.C., Sanguem. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, South Goa, at Margao.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, south Goa, Margao, duly framed the charges against the appellant/accused and co-accused Videsh Malwankar u/s 302, 307, 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., 1860 on 1.6.99 vide charges Exhibit 26, accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

Trial against the said accused was concluded after recording of the evidence of 62 witnesses out of 162 cited witnesses. Plea of the accused in defence was one of denial. In addition to this plea co-accused Videsh Malwankar took plea of alibi and chose to examine his brother Vinod Malwankar and General Manager of V.M. Salgaonkar Pvt. Ltd., to substantiate his plea of alibi.

Learned Trial Court rejected the plea of alibi but chose to acquit the co-accused Videsh Malwankar for want of convincing evidence as against him. However, learned Trial Court, believed ocular version of the crime and found the circumstantial evidence pitted against the present appellant- accused so complete and cogent as to record his findings that the complete chain of circumstances as required by the law to be proved against the appellant � accused stood proved. It is against this background that the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused as aforesaid. The appellants being aggrieved by these findings of the learned Trial Court have now taken exception to every such finding and have urged before us that complete chain of circumstances as required by the law to be established in proof of the commission of the crime has not been established with complete and cogent evidence by the prosecution.

Really speaking the evidence before us is both direct and circumstantial; and the learned Trial Court has considered both these pieces of evidence to arrive at the conclusion objected to by the appellants. The most important among this body of evidence is the evidence of the injured victim PW30 Maruti Jadhav. As regards the circumstantial evidence, learned Trial Court has found corroborative strength therein in order to actuate him to believe in the credibility of the ocular version of the crime given by PW30 Maruti Jadhav.

Among the least debatable circumstances in the present case is finding of body of the deceased Vinit Bindal with several injuries on his person in one of the ravines of Anmod Ghat in the proximity of high way leading to Goa � Karnataka border on 30.3.1998. The relations of the deceased Vinit Bindal, namely father in law PW1 Roldao Vaz and wife PW29 Priya Bindal, undisputably identified the body of the deceased Vinit Bindal. The evidence of PW2 Sebastiao Braganza, a Government servant from St. Cruz provides view of the facts and circumstances noticed by him at the spot of offence.

PW2 Sebastiao Braganza reveals that the place of crime was found situated near the board put up by Lions Club on the high way leading to Goa-Karnataka border and was so proximate to the border so as to pose a question to PW2 Braganza as to where it actually fell whether in the State of Goa or Karnataka; and for that purpose, after finding the body of the deceased Vinit Bindal, they brought the Karnataka police to the site and got confirmation from them that the site fell within geographical limits of State of Goa and, thereafter, they had approached Collem Police Station and got the observations recorded in form of a spot panchanama and sketch Exh. PW2/A Colly. PW2 Braganza further revealed that on detecting the blood on the main road at a distance of about 3 or 4 metres from Lions Club Board, they followed the trail of the blood which led them to the body of the deceased Vinit Bindal lying in ravine; and in the process of following trail of the blood they came across visiting cards, pen, three buttons, spanner, blue colour shirt, black colour handle of knife, vehicle tyre marks. All the aforesaid articles found lying at the said place along with blood soaked soil and plain soil were duly collected, packed and sealed in separate envelopes by the Collem Police at the spot on the same day. He identified the said articles and further identified the record of the event made under his signature at the spot in form of the panchanama and sketch Exh. PW2A Colly.

Cross examination of PW2 Braganza in fact brings out more details of the proceedings and the observations made at the said spot by PW2 Braganza and the police and adds colour to the testimony of PW2 Braganza with a fact that the photographs of the said event were taken in their presence. Except empty suggestions which were denied by PW2 Braganza there is nothing much to discredit the version of PW2 Braganza. An effort to challenge the testimony of PW2 Braganza has been made on the basis of a fact that he had gone with PW1 Ronaldo Vaz to the spot and happened to discover the body of the deceased Vinit Bindal. It is further suggested that he had signed the panchanama at the police station in order to please PW1 Vaz. It is however not demonstrated through cross examination either of PW1 Vaz or PW2 Braganza, what interest they had in the making the panchanama at the police station and then deposing something contrary to it before the Court. As a matter of fact, the testimony of P.W.2 Braganza reveals that he is a Government servant, who was on leave on 30.3.98. His evidence, therefore, deserves to be trusted.

On this background learned Trial Court has examined the evidence of PW30 Maruti Jadhav who provides answers to the facts and circumstances noticed at the scene of crime. The evidence of PW30 Maruti Jadhav reveals that around 5.30 a.m., on 29.3.98 he and his employer the deceased Vinit Bindal left St.Cruz in a Tata Sumo jeep bearing registration No. GA-01-C-3976 for Belgaum and Hubli via Ponda � Mollem; and as they were proceeding in Anmod Ghat, the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and two more persons in Tata sumo jeep bearing registration No. GA-01-C6695 overtook them; and somewhere at a distance of about 100 to 120 metres from Goa � Karnataka border he was signaled to stop by the A-1 Suresh Nayar for getting spanner, and as he bent down to take spanner from the back, one person with black complexion i.e. A-2 Wilson Fernandes besides him slashed out a knife and assaulted him on his neck; and this was followed by further assault with knife both by appellant-A-1 Suresh Nayar and A-2 Wilson Fernandes resulting in knife injuries on his left hand, fore arm front side, back side, left back, front side, back and thumb as well as on shoulder and front right side above knee. He further deposed that when he tried to snatch the knife from the hand of the A-2 Wilson Fernandes, the blade of the knife got detached from its handle with the handle remaining with the appellant/A-2 Wilson Fernandes. He further deposed that when he was being assaulted, the deceased Vinit Bindal out of fear had gone to the corner of the seat on the cleaner''s side and he had seen a third person with fair complexion trying to open the cleaner''s side door of the sumo, and his employer Vinit Bindal being dragged out of the car and assaulted by A-1 Suresh Nayar and A-2 Wilson Fernandes. As a result of this assault, the evidence reveals, he became unconscious, and after regaining consciousness he came out of the vehicle and started asking for help from the passers by, and after sometime he could get the help from some persons, who removed him initially in his Tata Sumo vehicle to Mollem Out Post and thereafter to Ponda hospital and finally to G.M.C., Bambolim hospital. PW30 Maruti Jadhav revealed in his evidence that on way to Mollem Outpost he had responded to the questions put by his rescuers and narrated the facts briefly giving the name of A-1 Suresh Nayar and number of Tata Sumo jeep used in the crime. Likewise he added that he had also responded to the questioning at Mollem Out Post. PW30 Maruti Jadhav testified that his employer Vinit Bindal was proceeding to Belgao in the vehicle driven by him with a cash amount for making purchases; and from his observations regarding past habit of making heavy purchases every time, he had feeling that deceased Vinit Bindal was carrying sum of rupees one lakh or two in a black coloured bag with him. PW30 Maruti Jadhav further described clothes and ornaments worn by the deceased Vinit Bindal at the material time and proceeded to identify blue colour shirt, Art-3, and personal belongings of the deceased Vinit Bindal. Pant, Art-21 as the clothes on the person of the deceased Vinit Bindal at the material time. He also identified spanner, Art-7a, black plastic handle, Art-4 and its blade, Art-30, together as one knife seen in the hand of the A-2 Wilson Fernandes. He further testified the fact of identification of A-2 Wilson Fernandes and A-3 in T.I. Parades. PW30 Maruti Jadhav described and identified the clothes which he had noticed on the person of the appellant � accused at the material time.

Cross examination of PW30 Maruti Jadhav reveals that his statements were recorded by the police while he was brought to the hospital and thereafter at the hospital. Physical condition of PW30 Maruti Jadhav is made as a backbone of an argument that he could not have made disclosure about the crime, as sought to be projected by the prosecution. In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to the testimony of PW3 Shrikant Dessai, PW4 Ramakant Mhapsekar, HC Collem Out Post and PW5 Chandrakant Gawas, police constable, Collem Police Station. PW3 Shrikant Dessai, as his evidence reveals was the first person to go to help of injured victim PW30 Maruti Jadhav. His testimony further reveals that he is complete stranger to PW30 Maruti Jadhav and had no interest except giving help to PW30 Maruti Jadhav purely out of humanitarian constraints. His testimony, therefore, assumes a great importance. PW3 Dessai revealed in his testimony that around 7.45 a.m. On 29.3.1998 on hearing about the condition of the injured person lying on the border of the Goa-Karnataka in Anmod Ghat he accompanied by Dnyaneshwar Sawant and Vilas Varade rushed to the spot, and had found PW30 Maruti Jadhav bleeding profusely and a sumo jeep by the side of the road. He further deposed that in response to their questions as to the happening at the spot PW30 Maruti Jadhav had given the name and narrated the fact of assault by one Suresh Nayar and two more accomplices with knife on him and his employer accompanying him in the sumo jeep. Such facts PW3 Dessai averred, were narrated by injured PW30 Maruti Jadhav to PW4 Mhapsekar when the victim was removed in the said sumo jeep by them to Mollem Police Station. He further testified the fact of removal of the victim to ID hospital, Ponda and thereafter to GMC, hospital at Bambolim. His evidence thus answers for absence of such Sumo jeep at the spot of offence on the date of panchanama Exh. P.W.2A Coll.

Cross-examination of PW3 Dessai does not throw any material challenge to the fact of he and his companions going to the rescue of the injured victim PW30 Maruti Jadhav and bringing him to Mollem Out Post and removing him thereafter to the hospital at Ponda and Bambolim. A fact therefore remains that he was natural witness to the facts asserted by him in the evidence. It might have been that the detailed facts about the A1 Suresh Nayar and the manner of assault with knife were not narrated by PW30 Maruti Jadhav to him. However, a concrete fact emerges from the evidence of PW3 Dessai that PW30 Maruti Jadhav did name the appellant-accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and indicate two others as the assailants at the spot. Pertinently, PW3 Dessai in his cross examination revealed that PW30 Maruti Jadhav was not bleeding much while he was being taken to ID hospital or GMC, hospital but was bleeding more at the scene of offence. There is no whisper in the cross examination of PW3 Shrikant Dessai that PW30 Maruti Jadhav was unconscious or was not in condition to narrate any facts about the incident at the material time. On the contrary, there is evidence of the fact that during the journey to ID hospital, Ponda and GMC, Bambolim. PW30 Maruti Jadhav was in his senses and was asking for water and prior to this he did give statements and narrate the facts. PW3 S. Dessai on material aspect of physical condition of PW30 Maruti Jadhav finds corroboration in the testimonies of PW4 Mhapsekar and PW5 Gawas. The evidence shows that PW58 Dilip Amonkar, Asst. Professor of Surgery in GMC had supervised the surgical procedure undertaken to save the injured victim PW30 Maruti Jadhav at surgical unit of G.M.C., on 29.3.1998. PW58 Amonkar averred that when the patient was brought to the hospital he was conscious. In his cross examination this fact was brought on record in reference to the history recorded in Medico Legal Certificate dated 16.6.1998 Exhibit PW58/A as under:

There was history of assault with sharp weapon; H/O loss of consciousness.

It is true that Dr. Shailesh Kamat, Senior Resident, Surgery Department issued certificate Exhibit PW58/A was not examined by the prosecution. However, a fact remains that the certificate Exhibit PW58/A nowhere makes a reference that PW30 Maruti Jadhav was unconscious when brought to the hospital. PW30 Maruti Jadhav did state about some spell of unconsciousness and the moments of his consciousness. Normally, the medical history is obtained by a Doctor from the patient examined by him. In the given facts and circumstances one can necessarily presume unless rebutted by any other cogent evidence that it was PW30 Maruti Jadhav, the victim himself, who had given history of assault and narrated the fact about loss of his consciousness. PW58 Amonkar did give parameters such as B.P., pulse rate, nature of injuries sustained thereby defining the physical condition of PW30 Maruti Jadhav. No use of these parameters have been made in the cross examination of PW58 Amonkar to probe deeper and bring on record a probability regarding the fact of unconsciousness of PW30 Maruti Jadhav. In absence of any living facts or circumstances on record regarding this aspect, it would be folly for judicial mind to give up to the imagination and to doubt the prosecution evidence firmly routed in the facts and circumstances obtaining from the evidence.

The evidence of PW58 Amonkar and PW62 Manjunath Dessai shows that the statement of PW30 Maruti Jadhav was recorded by PW62 Manjunath Dessai on 3.4.1998 and till then PW30 Maruti Jadhav was not declared to be fit for giving statement. One can clearly see that the condition of PW30 Maruti Jadhav at the hospital was critical and the efforts were being made to save his life. Mere consciousness of the patient considering the critical stage does not make the patient physically eligible to withstand the rigor of police interrogation and respond to it. It is on this background, it appears, the medical officers attending on PW30 Maruti Jadhav had declared PW30 Maruti Jadhav to be fit for giving statement on 3.4.1998 and not before. These facts do not obliterate the facts averred by PW30 Maruti Jadhav, the victim himself. PW3 Shrikant Dessai, PW4 Mhapsekar, PW5 Chandrakant Gawas virtually reiterate the facts narrated by PW30 Maruti Jadhav while on the way to the hospital.

PW58 Amonkar described the injuries on the person of PW30 Maruti Jadhav as under:

I) Left upper limb:

(i) Stab injury 3 x 2 cm on the medial aspect of forearm passing upwards and laterally to exit on the anterior lateral aspect of forearm 6 cm from joint line.

(ii) Stab injury on the left hand. Entry wound on dorsal aspect, space 3 cm long existing on palmer surface thinar eminence cut.

(iii) incised wound on dorsal surface forearm 3 x 1 cm extending above in between the external muscle.

(iv) 4 x 1 cm incised wound present at left arm.

(v) incised wound on the left shoulder 5 x 1 cm, 2 x 1 cm and 1 x 1 cm.

II) Neck : incised wound on the neck 6 x 1 cm cutting stern mastoid right side, thyroid exposed bleeding

(ii) incised wound 3 x 1 cm on the angle of the mandible chiping present.

(III) Back:( Right side )

(i) incised wound on the back at level of 7th rib 3 x 1 cm.

(ii)incised wound at level of 8th ICS 3 x 1 penetrating pleural cavity.

(iii) 3 x 1 cm incised wound creating a pocket extending medially 5 X 2 cm.

(IV) Scalp: incised wound on scalp occipital region 6 incisions. Linear fracture and scalp occipital region.

(V) Ear: Incised wound on right pinna.

According to PW58 Amonkar the injuries described by him could have been caused by knife either Art-13 or 22 or any sharp weapon and the injuries sustained were sufficient to cause the death of the patient if there was any delay in giving treatment. There is nothing to doubt this opinion expressed by PW58 Amonkar regarding the injuries suffered by the victim PW30 Maruti Jadhav. The medical evidence thus fully corroborates the testimony of PW30 Maruti Jadhav. There is evidence of PW1 Roldao Vaz and PW29 Priya Bindal about mentioning of the facts involving the appellants � particularly appellant No. 1 Nayar by PW30 Maruti Jadhav briefly to them while lying admitted to the GMC hospital at Bambolim on 29.3.1998. PW1 Vaz deposed that PW30 Maruti Jadhav told him and his daughter PW29 Priya that he and Vinit Bindal were attacked on the way to Hubli in the Ghat at Mollem by the ex-driver of Vinit Bindal and two other accomplices and Vinit Bindal was pulled out of the said Sumo vehicle. In his cross examination, on being confronted with the complaint Exhibit PW1/A, PW1 Vaz was prompted to say that PW30 Maruti Jadhav did not state that the ex-driver of Vinit Bindal and two accomplices had attacked him and Vinit Bindal on the way to Hubli in the Ghat at Mollem. However, it is important to note that PW1 Vaz was not knowing Marathi and the complaint Exhibit PW1/A was read over and explained to him in Konkani and whatever was explained to him in Konkani was taken by him as correct as he was under tension due to death of his son-in-law. On this background, the evidence of PW61 Deu Raut Dessai who had recorded the complaint at Exhibit PW1/A assumes importance. Nothing figures in the cross examination of PW61 Deu Raut Dessai on this aspect. At this stage it needs to be reminded that the complaint/FIR is not a substantive evidence and such complaint/FIR can only be used either for corroborating or contradicting the witness. To do complete justice to PW1 Vaz, it was necessary to question PW61 Deu Raut Dessai regarding explanation offered by him in respect of discrepancy in his testimony and the facts recorded in the complaint. Keeping aside the testimony of PW1 Vaz one can see from the evidence of PW29 Priya Bindal that PW30 Maruti Jadhav had indicated the role of accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and two other accomplices in the assault on him and the deceased Vinit Bindal while they were travelling in a Sumo jeep in Anmod Ghat. She proceeded to aver that initially the speech of PW30 Maruti Jadhav was very clear but went on deteriorating at the end and she could not understand what he was talking then. However, she categorically averred that she clearly understood the PW30 Maruti Jadhav regarding the assault by accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and two others with knife and taking away of her husband by the assailants. She further identified the clothes of the deceased Vinit Bindal and his personal belongings recovered from the spot of offence. Her evidence clearly shows that appellant � accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar was ex-employee of the deceased Vinit Bindal who was removed from his service for lack of honesty.

PW4 Mhapsekar deposed that PW30 Manjunath Dessai on being questioned did tell him the name of one Suresh and described two unknown persons as one fat person with dark complexion and one thin person with fair complexion as the assailants; and that he had recorded the statements of three persons who happened to accompany the injured to the hospital. He disclosed in the evidence that he had reported the said fact to Collem Police Station vide report dated 29.3.98 Exhibit PW4/A. In the cross examination PW4 Mhapsekar further revealed that he had dictated three reports to constable PW5 Chandrakant Gawas. First of such report he deposed, was kept just like that and second report was shown to PW62 Manjunath Dessai and third report Exh.PW4/A was thereafter prepared on the directions of PW62 Manjunath Dessai to give all the details. In the cross examination of PW4 Mhapsekar a carbon copy of the report Exhibit PW4/D1 which according to PW4 Mhapsekar was the translation of the second report was placed on record. PW4 Mhapsekar further identified the report dated 29.3.1998 Exhibit PW4/C as the first report which had remained on the record without being shown to PW62 Manjunath Dessai. Nothing concrete which can materially shake the prosecution case has been demonstrated from the reports Exhibit PW4/A, PW4/B, PW4/C and PW4/D1. A consistent story of assault by the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and two accomplices with knife in Anmod Ghat and use of Sumo vehicle No. GA-01-C6695 by them figures in the said report. Reference to injured victim Maruti Jadhav in the said assault also figures in the report at Exhibit PW4/A, PW4/C, PW4/D1.

The evidence of PW5 Chandrakant Gawas brings forth a fact that PW30 Maruti Jadhav on being questioned had given the name of the appellant � accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and the role he played along with two others as well as use of the said Tata Sumo vehicle in the said crime.

From the evidence of PW30 Maruti Jadhav, PW3 S. Dessai, PW4 Mhapsekar and PW5 Chandrakant Gawas one can reasonably believe that PW30 Maruti Jadhav was not unconscious and was questioned by PW4 Mapsekar while on the way to the hospital and PW4 Mhapsekar had stopped questioning before he reached ID hospital at Ponda. He further clarified that he did not narrate the entire incident to PW4 Mhapsekar. According to PW3 S. Dessai, PW4 Mhapsekar has roughly taken down his statement as well as statements of others including PW30 Maruti Jadhav while they were proceeding by the jeep to the hospital; and after coming to the Mollem Police Station PW4 Mhapsekar had made them fair. From the evidence of PW4 Mhapsekar and PW5 Chandrakant Gawas, one can only gather that the said reports were made at Mollem Police Station after coming back from hospital. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of PW4 Mhapsekar and PW5 Chandrakant Gawas to suggest that the statement of PW30 Maruti Jadhav was recorded at that time. On this background, it has been argued on behalf of the defence that the facts stated by PW1 Roldao Vaz, PW29 Priya Bindal, PW3 Shrikant Dessai, PW4 Mhapsekar and PW5 Chandrakant Gawas regarding the facts disclosed to them by the injured victim PW30 Maruti Jadhav need to be discarded as hear say evidence. In answer to this, the prosecution invoked provisions u/s 6 of the Evidence Act incorporating the Doctrine of res gestae which is an exception to the rule of hear say evidence. He relied upon the judgment reported in Sukhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, , in support of its plea for invoking the said provisions of the Evidence Act. In this context, it has been rightly pointed out by learned Trial Court that PW3 Shrikant Dessai, PW4 Mhapsekar and PW5 Chandrakant Gawas were the earliest persons to meet PW30 Maruti Jadhav shortly after the incident and the narration made by PW30 Maruti Jadhav regarding the crime without there being any opportunity for any reflection or fabrication becomes relevant as forming part of res gestae and thus becomes exception to the rule of hear say evidence.

At this stage, it is also necessary to resolve a controversy raised by the defence regarding the FIR registered upon the statement Exhibit PW1/A of PW1 Roldao Vaz at 13.00 hours on 30.3.1998. The defence argued that the statement Exhibit PW1/A of PW1 Roldao Vaz cannot be regarded as an FIR in context with the fact of there being statement of the injured victim disclosing the facts regarding commission of cognizable offence and suppression of such statement by the prosecution ought to be seriously viewed. Learned Advocate Singh for the appellant � accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes submitted that the judgment cited by the prosecution Krishna Mochi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, to argue a proposition that non admissibility of FIR in evidence could not be a ground of acquittal of the accused cannot come to the rescue of the prosecution, as the case in hand is one of lack of FIR. Delay in lodging the FIR according to the learned Advocate Singh for the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was also not a question in the present controversy. To further his arguments learned Advocate Singh for the appellant � accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes invited attention of the Bench to the observations of the Single Judge of this Bench at para No. 12 of the Criminal Appeal No. 71/07 expressing deleterious effect of the suppression of the information by the prosecution on the prosecution case.

Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the characteristics of the term FIR though this term is not found used in the Code (commonly known term FIR). It is the earliest information as its nick name suggests, of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer incharge of Police Station and signed by the informant after being read over to him or it may be information given in writing by the informant under his signature. As discussed above, no such record of the statement made by the injured victim PW30 Maruti Jadhav was made by PW4 Mhapsekar except recording the said fact in form of a report. The reports made by PW4 Mhapsekar have been brought on record. Certainly, there has been no mischievous suppression of any such FIR. The prosecution further pointed out from the cross examination of PW4 Mhapsekar and PW5 Chandrakant Gawas that none of the said three reports had reached the Police Station prior to the registration of the FIR Exh.PW1/A, and the learned Trial Court had called for the station diary entry. Serial No. 11 made at Collem Police Station at about 9.15 hours on 20.3.1998 upon PW5 Constable Chandrakant Gawas reporting the incident to PW62 PSI Manjunath Dessai and further observed that the said entry can qualify to be termed as FIR given u/s 154 of Criminal Procedure Code. No flaw in this observation made by the learned Trial Court has been pointed out by the defence.

No material contradiction or omission emerges from the cross examination of PW30 Maruti Jadhav. There has been consistent prosecution case which is found emerging through the evidence. No prejudice is seen to have been caused to the defence on account of non registration of FIR either by PW4 Mhapsekar or PW62 Manjunath Dessai prior to 13.00 hours on 30.3.1998 i.e., registration of the FIR Exhibit PW1/A.

The testimony of PW30 Maruti Jadhav gains further corroboration from the finding of his blood on serrated blade of knife � Art-13 recovered from the jeep which was driven by him at the material time. PW6 Khandeparkar, Engineer and Sarpanch from Mollem averred that in the morning of 31.3.1998 blood stained seat cover � Art-14 and 15 serrated blade of knife � Art-13, blood/paint scrapping � Art-16 and 17 were duly seized from a white colour Sumo jeep bearing registration No. GA-01-C-3976 in his presence at Mollem Police Station. For the reason of his inability to remember certain facts particularly blood here and there, the defence thereto branded him as liar. The fact that the seizures were made on 31.3.1998 at Mollem Out Post and not promptly after it came into the custody of the police on 29.3.1998 was also capitalized to throw slur on the seizure proceedings. A fact however cannot be forgotten that PW3 Dessai had noticed the presence of the blood in the said jeep immediately after he visiting the place of offence to help wounded PW30 Maruti Jadhav. Nothing to rule out the use of knife blade � Art-13 in the crime has been brought out on record through the evidence of PW58 Dilip Amonkar. There is no reason surfacing in the cross examination of PW6 Khandeparkar to disbelieve his testimony. Human blood particularly of ''O'' group belonging to PW30 Maruti Jadhav is detected on the knife � Art-13 and seat cover � Art-14 and 15. CFSL report dated 7.12.1998 further confirms the fact that knife blade � Art-13 could fit well with a black plastic handle � Art-14, recovered from the spot of offence to make a complete knife.

Seizure of blood stained on underwear � Art-21a, handkerchief � Art-21b, blue colour full pant � Art-21, from the person of the deceased Vinit Bindal and the packing and sealing of the said articles at G.M.C., hospital at Bambolim finds place in the evidence of PW8 Karathi, a Watchman from the building construction site in the vicinity of G.M.C., hospital, Bambolim. He clarified in his cross examination that there was no shirt on the dead body. Nothing comes out from his cross examination to discredit this version of the seizure of clothes of the deceased. Moreover, PW29 Priya Bindal and PW30 Maruti Jadhav had duly identified the said articles as those which were on the person of the deceased Vinit Bindal at the material time. Likewise, PW9 Maruti Jadhav reveals in the evidence the facts about the seizure of blood stained shirt and pant � Art-8 from the person of injured victim PW30 Maruti Jadhav on 31.3.1998. Nothing much turns on his testimony, as PW30 Maruti Jadhav had identified these clothes as the one which were on his person on the day of the incident. Human blood is detected on the said clothes. These facts further corroborate the testimony of PW30 Maruti Jadhav.

Credibility to the version of P.W.30 Maruti Jadhav is further afforded by the wireless messages despatched by the P.W.62 Manjunath Dessai to all check posts and traffic cells in Goa Exh.P.W.62/e and to Ganeshgudi Police Station, Karwar, Karnataka P.W.62/f around 5.00 p.m. on 29.3.1998. These wireless messages give brief narration of the facts concerning the crime which pertinently includes the name of the appellant/accused No. 1 Suresh Nayer, the name of victim P.W.30 Maruti Jadhav and the registration numbers of the Sumo vehicles involved in the incident. Wireless message Exh.P.W.62/e referred to missing "businessman accompanying the victim Maruti Jadhav" and called for general alert. Wireless message Exh.P.W.62/f besides making reference to the removal of the victim to I.D. Hospital, Ponda in critical condition reveals the state of mind of Collem Police regarding the falling of the place of incident within the limits of Ganeshgudi Police Station. It also speaks of the disclosures made by the victim. Such facts could not have been mentioned in the said wireless messages unless P.W.30 Maruti Jadhav had made disclosures about it. Wireless messages Exh.P.W.62/e and f, therefore, clearly rules out the incidence of any manipulation in the prosecution version.

The appellant � accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar was arrested by PSI Manjunath Dessai under panchanama at Exhibit PW10/A in the presence of PW10 Armando Misquita on 13.4.1998. PW4 Mhapsekar deposed that following the receipt of information from Ganeshpuri Police Station in Karnataka about the detention of accused Suresh Nayar he arrested accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and produced him before PW62 Manjunath Dessai. The accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar was found wearing black pant and T-shirt. Examination of his body led to the detection of injury on his left lower leg. PW10 Misquita afforded independent corroboration to these facts observed at the time of arrest of appellant � accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar. He identified the panchanama Exhibit PW10/A made to record the said observations at that time. His cross examination shows that he did not know as to when accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar was brought to the Police Station but the fact remains that the appellant � accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar carried injury on his left lower knee heel on 13.4.1998. PW45 Uttam L. Dessai, Medical Officer at Collem had examined accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar on 15.4.1998. He also observed the existence of old injury admeasuring 8 cm long by 0.1 cm broad on the left lower leg of the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar. He opined that such injury could have been caused in a scuffle around 15 days back. His word has gone unchallenged in the evidence. The accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar also did not explain the said injury.

On this back drop the evidence of PW21 Petricio D''Souza, employer of accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar assumes importance. PW21 Petricio D�Souza deposed that in the evening of 28.3.1998 at his La Vista lodge at Panaji, the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar, who was then working as his driver on Tata Sumo jeep bearing No. GA-01-C-6695, approached him with a request to permit the use of the said vehicle for taking his ailing brother from G.M.C., to his house at Karwar and he had granted his request. He added that accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar the after took the said vehicle at about 9.00 p.m. on 28.3.1998. On the next day morning, he deposed, he received message that accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar was asking for his bag; and soon thereafter the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar came with the said vehicle paid him Rs. 600/-for diesel use and went to bathroom on the back side of the said lodge for washing his hands and legs. At that time, PW21 D''Souza deposed, he had seen bleeding injury on the leg of the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and, thereafter, the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar went away with his bag. In the same evening, he further deposed, the police approached him with the inquiries regarding the said Sumo jeep and police had detected blood like stains inside the said vehicle and, thereafter, the said vehicle was taken away by the police in connection with the present case. Since then the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar, he added, did not approach him again except leaving a message on telephone around noon time on 30.3.1998 that the motorcycle was kept behind Cidao Church by him. Nothing material emerges from the cross examination of PW21 D�Souza to put to discount his sworn statement. No explanation has been offered by the appellant � accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar as to why he absconded when he had duty to perform as an employee of PW21 Petricio D''Souza.

Discovery of clothes � Articles 18 and 19 by the appellant � accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar as testified by PW34 Rudrappa Rathod and PW62 Manjunath Dessai had put last nail in his coffin. PW34 Rudrappa Rathod deposed that accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar in response to the interrogation done by the police made disclosures which were scribed in form of a memorandum Exhibit PW34/A signed by accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and himself; and thereafter they were taken to a small village in a jeep in the direction shown by the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar and the accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar had asked one lady from one house in the said village to get a bag from which discovery of the pant and T-shirt � Art-18 and 19 was made. These facts are found corroborated by the contents of memorandum Exhibit PW34/A and PW34/B. PW34 Rudrappa Rathod affords independent corroboration to the testimony of PW62 Manjunath Dessai that the appellant � accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar had made discovery of clothes used by him at the time of the crime. Those Articles 18 and 19 show presence of human blood as per the report dated 31.8.1998 of the CFSL. No explanation has been offered by the appellant � accused No. 1 Suresh Nayar for existence of human blood on his clothes. Learned Trial Court has not found merit in the facts concerning the attachment of the sum of Rs. 4900/-from the house of one Draupadi under panchanama at Exhibit PW55/A and the letters at Exhibit PW34/A purportedly written to one Maya and Rajan (Rajath) and, therefore, it is not necessary to dwell on this aspect any further.

Evidence shows that the appellant � accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes, was identified as one of the assailants by P.W.30 Jadhav and was identified in T.I. Parade conducted by PW33 Faria on 27.6.1998. Learned Advocate Shri Singh for the appellant � accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes has submitted that in holding the T.I. Parade there has been violation of the guidelines stipulated therefore in the Criminal Manual in as much as number of dummies were inadequate and option to choose the place in T.I. Parade was not given to the appellant � accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes. Cross examination of PW33 Faria reveals that there were five dummies and he had not made reference to (1) the question asked to the identifying witness as to whether he had any opportunity to see culprit at any time subsequent of the offence or after his arrest, (2) the question asked to the accused whether he had any objection to the persons standing in the parade in the memorandum of T.I. Parade. His evidence does not show that option to choose place in T.I. Parade was not given to the accused No. 2 Fernandes.

The object of an identification parade is to make sure that the ability of the witness to recognize the suspect has been fairly and adequately tested. Guidelines prescribed in the Criminal Manual are of illustrative nature and exercise of the discretion of the Officer holding T.I. Parade is the sole criterion for assessing the fact of achievement of the object of identification parade. PW33 Faria further revealed in the cross examination that he had selected persons having similar appearance and comparable ages vis-a-vis the accused standing the Test Identification parade. It has not been demonstrated in cross examination of PW33 Faria that he had deliberately kept five dummies one less than the prescribed in the Criminal Manual, in the parade in order to facilitate identification of the accused by the witness. No violation of Clause 16 sub Clause (3)(viii)(ix)(x) in Chapter I of the Criminal Manual, which speaks about memorandum recorded by the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate conducting the T.I. Parade, has been pointed from the evidence by the defence. Clause 3(xi) in Chapter I of the Criminal Manual reveals that the Officer conducting T.I. Parade should question and ascertain from the witness whether he had opportunity to see the culprit at any time subsequent to the offence or after the arrest. In this context, the said provision does not make it mandatory upon the officer conducting the T.I. Parade to make record of such fact. Relevant provision reads as under:

He may either record the statement separately or make a reference to that statement in his memorandum.

Nowhere from the evidence of PW30 Maruti Jadhav, it has been pointed out that he had opportunity to see accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes, the culprit at any time subsequent to the offence or after his arrest. On this background, it cannot be said that the ability of the witness to recognize the suspect was not fairly and adequately tested in the T.I. Parade conducted by PW33 Faria. Learned Trial Court further observed in light of the ratio expressed in Malkhan Singh case reported in 2005 SCC 746 that there can be exception to the general rule of prudence requiring corroboration to the identification of the accused in the Court by the witness particularly when the Court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely without such or other corroboration. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Trial Court found other clinching facts and circumstances corroborating the testimony of PW30 Maruti Jadhav and was thus impressed by the testimony of PW30 Maruti Jadhav vis-a-vis the involvement of the appellant � accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes.

The discovery of knife � Article (22) used in the crime by accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes from the heap of mud near one Matti tree (forest tree ) some distance away from the side road going to Nandan is one more circumstance which offers credibility to the prosecution case. PW7 Bharat Patil, a press reporter from Curchorem, revealed the fact of accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes making a statement as per the panchanama Exhibit PW7/A and a discovery of said knife from the said place following such statement. Being a press reporter, PW7 Bharat Patil had every reason to be at the police station and knowing the police officers from highest rank to the lowest in Goa. However, these facts alone are not sufficient to dismiss the testimony of PW7 Bharat Patil as the one coming from an amenable source. It is well known that the relationship between a press reporter and a policeman is not always a happy one, and more oftenly the police officials are scared of the press. We find from the testimony of PW7 Bharat Patil that the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was not handcuffed and had registered his presence at the material time with his signature appended below the panchanama at Exhibit PW7/A.

Much ado has been made from the averment of PW7 Bharat Patil that the place from where the knife � Article (22) was discovered was an open place. A fact cannot be forgotten that the place from where the discovery was made was in a jungle, normally not frequented by people. There is also evidence of the fact that the blade of the knife was found pierced in the heap of mud. Existence of such knife in such condition could not have been known to any one except the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes unless he himself must have kept the knife at the said place or had seen somebody else keeping the knife at the said place or somebody would have told him about keeping of such knife at the said place. As regards the later two possibilities the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes did not make any disclosure before the Court. Logically, therefore, the only possibility that remains viable is the fact that the knife was so kept by the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes himself. Discovery of the knife � Article (22) by the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes is, therefore, not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, needs to be believed. Moreover, Human blood was detected on the knife Art-22 for which there is no explanation forthcoming from the accused No. 2 Fernandes.

The evidence of P.W.57 Vasudev Rahul, A.S.I. reveals that the appellant/accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was arrested on 24.06.1998 in Crime No. 62/1998 registered at Calangute Police Station in the case of criminal assault on one bus driver Andrew Gonsalves. The knife used in the crime was not attached. After going through the papers, P.W.57, in the re-examination, clarified that Wilson Fernandes was arrested by P.S.I. Manjunath Dessai of Collem Police Station and he had then obtained transfer warrant from North Goa. A fact, however, remains that the appellant/accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was involved in the Crime No. 62/1998 of Calangute Police Station. P.W.28 Andrew Gonsalves deposed that there was an incident of assault by the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes with knife at 4.00 p.m. on 25.03.1998 at or about bus stand of Calangute Beach. He identified the knife i.e. blade Art-13 and Plastic Handle Art-4 together as the weapon used by the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes in the said assault. He gave description of the knife particularly as regards its serrated nature. In the cross examination, P.W.28 Gonsalves did reveal that in the course of the assault, the blade and the handle were together and entire handle was not visible. He further deposed that he had described the knife in the statement made by him before the police in that case. There is no material contradiction or omission in his deposition to discredit his version. A fact, therefore, clearly emerges from the evidence of P.W.28 Gonsalves that the accused No. 2 was using knife of the kind, used in the present case for committing violence.

The evidence of PW13 Faiz Khan Jahagirdar, security incharge at Cuddegal Fomento Mines, Sanvordem, deposed that accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes, who operated under pseudonym ''Francisco Rebello'' was arrested by PW62 Manjunath Dessai in his presence -at Cuddegal Fomento Mines at Sanvordem. His evidence reveals that the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes worked at the said mines for about 19 days under pseudonym ''Francisco Rebello'' and old injury mark was found on the right leg of accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes. The accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was medically examined by PW44 Dr. Kakodkar on 6.6.1998 that is the next day of his arrest. PW44 Dr. Kakodkar deposed that the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes had a scar 1 cm X 1 cm at right medial caused by injury due to hard and blunt object more than one month back and such injury could have been caused in a scuffle. PW44 Dr. Kakodkar had not expressed certainty about the age of such injury. Expression more than one month old could be anything unless qualified with certainty what it means to be more than one month. This circumstance in our considered opinion cannot be a clinching circumstance against the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes. However, the fact of operating under Pseudonym sufficiently exposes guilty mind of the A/2 Wilson Fernandes.

One letter Exhibit PW13/A bearing message "Be alert police are coming" enclosed in one envelope addressed to PW13 Jahagirdar with a note �please hand over to Francisco Rebello� was recovered from a table drawer in the office of PW13 Jahagirdar. To supplement the evidence, PW13 Jahagirdar had handed over petro max register maintained by accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes and muster roll bearing signature of accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes. PW13 Jahagirdar further deposed that accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes known to him as ''Francisco Rebello'' had produced before the police his T-shirt carrying black marks from the room he had occupied at Cuddegal premises. Evidence further reveals that these facts were recorded in form of arrest panchanama at Exhibit PW13/B. Relevant entries in the petro max register, muster roll Exhibit PW13/F colly made by accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes were identified by PW13 Jahagirdar. As against this concrete material in form of documentary evidence, there is nothing in the cross examination of PW13 Jahagirdar to suggest that the said entries were not made by accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes. Interestingly, PW13 Jahagirdar deposed that accused No. 2 � Wilson Fernandes never went out of Fomento Mines premises and had demanded his motor bike for getting his birth certificate etc. The evidence of PW13 Jahagirdar clearly shows that accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes had virtually sought refuge away from public gaze in the Fomento Mines Premises under pseudonym ''Francisco Rebello''. This conduct of accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes is very much eloquent to show his guilty mind.

Stay of the accused No. 2 Wilson at Fomento Mines at Cuddegal under pseudonym ''Francis Rebello'' is further revealed from the evidence of P.W.16 Preetam Naik, caterer at Fomento Mines. Pointing out to the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes P.W.16 Preetam Naik averred that P.W.13 Jahagirdar had brought the accused No. 2 Wilson and introduced him as one Francis Rebello with instructions to give him breakfast and meals every day and this happened in the month of April 1998. He further revealed that he had supplied breakfast and meals to the accused No. 2 for 24 days and in support of this revelation he produced bill dated 12.6.1998 Exh.PW16/A raised by him for supply of food to the security persons including ''Francis Rebello'' the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes. The Cross-examination of P.W.16 Preetam Naik reveals that he was not knowing the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes prior to he being introduced by P.W.13 Jahagirdar to him in the month of April 1998 and he had no occasion to talk to the accused No. 2 at any time. These facts, in fact, reveal propitious circumstance for the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes to safely operate at Fomento Mines under pseudonym ''Francis Rebello'' without being exposed and the cross-examination of P.W.16 Preetam Naik does no harm to the facts revealed in his testimony.

The evidence shows that not only the appellant/accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes wanted to conceal his identity but desired to stay away from his usual abode. The evidence of P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar @ Bullu resident of Candolim revealed in his evidence that the appellant/ accused No. 2 Wilson resident of Nerul known to him as a neighbour of the maternal house of his wife, stayed at his ancestral house at Padeli for about 15 days in the month of April, 2 and half years back i.e. April 1998. This fact is not met with any serious challenge in his cross-examination. On the contrary, the Scooter No. GDT 9468 referred to by him as the one used by the appellant/accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes for coming to his ancestral house, it is suggested, was recovered from his possession notwithstanding the other evidence on record revealing nexus between the said Scooter and the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes.

T-shirt � Art-20 which was recovered from the room of the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes at Fomento Mines premises was found to carry blood stains which were considered insufficient for serological examination vide report dated 31.8.1998 of CFSL. The Accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes has not offered any explanation as to why his T- shirt was found to carry such blood stains. 46. The evidence PW20 Sagar Kanekar further highlights the conduct of accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes. According to PW20 Sagar Kanekar while he was working at cashew plantation of one Raju Guler at Padeli, Sattari, the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes and one Suryakant had came on yellow scooter in the month of April, 1998 for work; and thereafter the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes had been to his house at Poryem somewhere in the month of May, 1998 and told him that he was working as security guard in Viking security and he should also work like him at Cuddegal Mines at Sanvordem; and thereupon he had been to Cuddegal Mines at Sanvordem, met accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes and had started working in the mine as security guard.

The evidence of P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar and P.W.20 Sagar Kanekar further offers a pertinent circumstance of making of an extra judicial confession by the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes. The question raised by the defence as to the possibility of the accused No. 2 Fernandes making confession brings this issue under judicial scanner. P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar deposed that after about 4 days from the date of coming of the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes to his ancestral house, the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes had told him that he had committed a murder at Anmod Ghat of one Bindal, the owner of Super Market at Panaji. It is true that the evidence of P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar does not disclose communication of this material fact by P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar to his family members except to his partner P.W.20 Sagar.

The evidence of P.W.19 Manohar further reveals that the accused No. 2 Wilson was taken by him to P.W.20 Sagar. P.W.20 Sagar deposed that he has asked Manohar @ Bullu as to why the accused No. 2 Wilson came to the plantation and P.W.19 Manohar @ Bullu had told him that the accused No. 2 Wilson had committed murder. Some time thereafter, the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes had revealed to P.W.20 Sagar Kanekar killing of a businessman by name Bindal of Goa-Karnataka Border by him and two others namely Suresh and Videsh. His evidence similarly reveals that the fact of making of an extra judicial confession by the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was kept secret. Why did they conduct themselves in the manner as revealed in their evidence, is a pertinent question, which needs to be answered from the evidence on record.

The evidence of P.W.19 and 20 Sagar Kanekar bears out a fact that they and the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes were the birds of the same feathers in as much as they enjoyed notoriety of coming in conflict with law at one time or other. P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar deposed that the accused No. 2 Wilson and one Ajay had committed theft of clothes some four days after coming to Padeli and the police had suspected his hand in the said theft and had approached him at Padeli. The activities of P.W.2 Sagar Kanekar were also not different than those seen from the evidence of P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar. He deposed that there was theft at Padeli in which the accused No. 2 Wilson, P.W.19 Manohar @ Bullu and one more person were involved and thereafter, Bullu and the accused No. 2 had been to his house; and at the instance of the accused No. 2 Wilson, he approached his mother at Nerul for getting money. Obviously the evidence reveals that P.W.19 Manohar, P.W.20 Sagar and the accused No. 2 Wilson enjoyed confidence of each other. No wonder that the accused No. 2/Wilson Fernandes confided in them his involvement in the crime. It can also be seen from the evidence that the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was scared of the shadow of Policemen and had, therefore, to take some one in confidence for warning him of any impending danger of being arrested by the police in the present case. This can further be seen from the averment of P.W.20 Sagar that he had dispatched a letter to the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes cautioning him about the police when he was called at Valpoi Police Station. P.W.20 Sagar further revealed that the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was known as Francis Rebello at Cuddegal Mines. He further testified that the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes was a dangerous man. The evidence of P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar reveals that the accused No. 2 Wilson approached to him in the late night and could manage his stay on threatening him and his brother. All this provides cogent answers to the question as to why the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes had made such an extra judicial confession before P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar and P.W.20 Sagar Kanekar and why P.W.19 Manohar Gaonkar and P.W.20 Sagar Kanekar did not disclose those confessions made by the accused No. 2 Fernandes promptly to anyone. The learned Trial Court after going through the evidence of P.W.19 Manohar and P.W.20 Sagar, therefore, rightly observed that non-disclosure of such extra judicial confessions by them either to their family members or police or anybody else, was immaterial. Furthermore, the post event conduct of the witness varies from person to person and there cannot be cast iron pattern to be followed as a matter by everyone witness in such events. Nothing abnormal can be detected in the conduct of P.W.19 Manohar and P.W.20 Sagar. Extra judicial confession made to them by the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes, was, therefore, rightly accepted by the learned Trial Court ''as proved'' strong circumstance to connect the accused No. 2 Wilson with the crime.

Purchase of Gold Ornaments and Vespa Schooter by the accused No. 2 Wilson are the circumstances finding favour with the learned Trial Court for connecting the accused No. 2 Wilson with the crime in question. As regards the purchase of Gold Ornaments, the Trial Court observed that this circumstance though of clinching nature, implicates the accused No. 2 Wilson in the crime committed by him. The learned Trial Court further observed that the accused No. 2 Wilson purchased the said Scooter for Rs. 7,000/-and spent an amount of Rs. 2,500/-for its repairs and yet could not offer any explanation as to from where he derived the said amounts and, therefore, it can safely be inferred that the said money came from the money found in possession of the deceased Vinit Bindal. No doubt, it is open to a judicial mind to draw an inference and presume the existence of any fact. But all such evidence needs to be clearly and cogently proved and, must provide room for such presumption, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business. In the instant case, there is no clear and cogent evidence to point out that it was the cash from the booty in this crime, which was used for purchase of the said articles. These circumstances, therefore, do not offer support to the prosecution case.

It has been further argued in defence of the appellant/accused that on the same set of facts and circumstances, the accused No. 3 Videsh was acquitted and the appellant/accused were held guilty to suffer punishment in the present case and this calls for acquittal of the appellant/accused in the present case. The learned Trial Court observed that the circumstantial evidence against the accused No. 1 Suresh and the accused No. 2 Wilson was sufficient to complete the chain of the circumstances connecting them with the crime and so far as the accused No. 3 Videsh was concerned, the circumstances are not consistent with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused No. 3 Videsh. The learned Trial Court found the following circumstantial evidence pitted against the accused No. 3 Videsh:

(i) Rash found on the body of the accused No. 3 Videsh.

(ii) The recovery of Gold Chain Art-38 from the house of the accused No. 3 Videsh.

(iii) Abscondence of the accused No. 3 Videsh.

The learned Trial Court further observed that there can be umpteen reasons for a person to have a rash and there was no clear evidence as to how and in what circumstances, the chain Art-38 could have landed in the house of the accused No. 3 Videsh to be produced by his brother D.W.1 at the Police Station. As discussed above, the purchase of ornaments fails to further the prosecution case. The Abscondence per se, as observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash @ Raja Vs. State of Uttaranchal, need not be a positive circumstance consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Rightly, therefore, the Trial Court could distinguish between the facts and circumstances pitted against the appellant/accused and those against the accused No. 3 Videsh, and proceeded to acquit the accused No. 3 Videsh in the present case.

Relying on the judgments reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, , State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, , State of Haryana Vs. Jagbir Singh and Another, , Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana, , the learned Advocate P.P. Singh for the appellant/accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes argued that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances which are found to be incompatible with innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. With particular reference to judgment in Jagabir Singh''s case and Rajaram''s case, he questioned the reliability of the extra judicial confessions in the present case. To counter these submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor Ferreira placed reliance on the judgments reported in AIR 1970 Bombay 438 Dinkar Bandhu Deshmukh and Anr. v. State, Krishna Mochi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, , Mohar and Another Vs. State of U.P., and Sham Alias Raju R. Anpur and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, and further submitted that in the instant case, the injured victim gave evidence regarding the involvement of the appellant/accused in the crime and his testimony has its own efficacy and relevancy, and regardless of other corroborative evidence conviction can be based on his testimony alone. The evidence discussed above reveals that the testimony of P.W.30 Maruti Jadhav, an injured witness, is reliable and also well corroborated by other circumstances revealed in the evidence. There are no material discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.30 Maruti Jadhav. Certainly, the present case is not the one which is based solely on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances disclosed in the evidence are incompatible with innocence of the accused. The foregoing discussions reveal that extra judicial confessions were made by the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes to the persons with whom he confided, particularly when there was no inducement, threat or promise extended to him for making such confessions. Obviously, such confessions were made by the accused No. 2 Wilson Fernandes voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. From the judgment in Gurasingh''s case reported in 2001(2) SCC 205 Gurasingh v. State of Rajasthan cited by the prosecution, it is not difficult to find that retraction of such confessions would not by itself weaken the prosecution case and even such extra judicial confessions can form the sole basis of conviction. The evidence discussed above is, therefore, sufficient to book the appellant accused in the present crime. We need not, therefore, labour to involve ourselves in the discussion of other evidence on record.

The appeals must, therefore, fail and, accordingly, are dismissed with no order as to costs.