Vasant Siddhu Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra

Mr. Anand S. Patil, for Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. --- CORAM : A.S. OKA AND SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ DATE : SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 P.C.: 1 Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant. 2 This is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for two months. Talwalkar 2

12.appa1126.12.sxw 3 In support of this Application, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the order of conviction is based on the sole testimony of P.W.13 Kailash Murlidhar Sutar and his deposition shows that there is a gross unexplained delay in lodging complaint though the said witness claims to be an eye witness. He pointed out that it is only after police started suspecting the said witness and only after the police started a search for the said witness, he went to the police station and lodged complaint. He submitted that the evidence of the said witness indicates that the deceased as well as the Applicant were under the influence of liquor at the time of incident. 4 We had given careful consideration to the submissions. We find from the evidence of the Medical Officer who performed post mortem that there were as many as 17 external injuries on the body of the deceased. It is found that right eye ball was detached and it was loosely attached in the eye ball socket. It is found that left cheek was crushed and compressed. The Medical Officer found that there was a fracture present upto mandible irregularly crushed. Both the lips were crushed. Talwalkar 3

12.appa1126.12.sxw 5 Perusal of evidence of P.W.13 shows that in the examination in chief itself he has explained delay in lodging the report. He claims to have immediately disclosed the incident to his mother. We find from the evidence of P.W. 13 that he has clearly implicated the Applicant. He has stated that the Applicant assaulted the deceased by means of stones. He stated that though he himself and others obstructed the Applicant, the Applicant slapped him and threatened to assault him. He stated that the Applicant gave two blows on the head of the deceased by means of stone and by a small stones, he assaulted on the face of the deceased. 6 The witness himself has given explanation for delay. At this stage, we cannot enter the arena of re-appreciation of evidence. Looking to the gravity of the offence and the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution, we find that this is not the case where substantive sentence can be suspended and the Applicant can be released on bail. Accordingly, the Application is rejected. Hearing of the Appeal is expedited. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J) (A. S. OKA, J.) Talwalkar