High Court
Legal Reasoning
Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.296 OF 2020Dilip s/o Bhimrao GhuteAge 55 years, Occ. Convict No.8756R/o Ekurga, Tq. & Dist. LaturAt present in Central Prison, Aurangabad… APPELLANTVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, MurudTq. Dist. Latur(Copy to be served on PublicProsecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)… RESPONDENT.......Mrs. Bharti Gunjal, Advocate for appellant (appointed)Mr. S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.Date of reserving judgment : 2nd April, 2024.Date of pronouncing judgment : 12th April, 2024.JUDGMENT (PER R.G. AVACHAT, J.) The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment andorder dated 19/12/2016, passed by the Court of learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case,No.94/2015, whereby the appellant was convicted for the Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 2 ::offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufferimprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and rigorousimprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-respectively, with default stipulations. The appellant is,therefore, in this appeal before us. 2.The First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged byP.W.1 Bibhishan (informant), a Police Patil of the village Ekurga,Taluka and District Latur on 20/7/2015. It has been averred inthe F.I.R. that the informant learnt from his brother Jalindar that,Satish Ghute (deceased) was beaten up in his agricultural field.The informant, in his capacity as a Police Patil, therefore,proceeded towards the place to see what the matter was. Hewas accompanied by 4 others in his jeep. While they were nearthe field of one Haribhau Survase, they noticed the appellantcoming from opposite side, riding a bullock cart. It was about10.00 in the morning. The informant intercepted him. He foundSatish (deceased) to have suffered multiple injuries and waseven dead. The appellant told the informant that Satish dieddue to fall and, therefore, he was carrying his dead body forfinal rites to be performed in their another field.
Legal Reasoning
Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 3 ::3.Since the informant, after having seen the deadbody, realized it was not an accident and, therefore, contactedShri Padwal, Assistant Police Inspector on phone. He turnedhis jeep back and continued to follow the bullock cart. ShriPadwal (P.W.16) asked Police Head Constable Nagargoje(P.W.11) to go to the village and see what the matter was. ShriNagargoje came to the village. The appellant confessed him tohave killed his brother Satish. True, a confession made topolice officer is inadmissible. Shri Nagargoje, however,detained the appellant along with the bullock cart then andthere. A.P.I. Padwal (P.W.16) reached the village after a while.The informant gave him F.I.R., who, in turn, reduced intowriting.4.Based on the F.I.R. (Exh.19), a crime vide C.R.No.76/2015 was registered for offence punishable underSections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Duringinvestigation, it was realized that the son of the appellant wasalso involved in committing murder of Satish. Since he wasfound to be a juvenile in conflict with law, a separate chargesheet was filed against him before competent forum.5.During the investigation of the crime, the scene of Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 4 ::offence panchanama was drawn. Inquest was conducted.Clothes on the person of the deceased and that of the appellantwere seized under panchanamas. Mortal remains of Satishwere subject to post mortem examination. There wereweapons in the bullock cart, wherewith Satish was assaulted.Those too came to be seized. All the articles and bloodsamples of both, the appellant and the deceased, were sent toF.S.L. for chemical analysis and report. Upon completion of theinvestigation, the appellant was proceeded against by filing acharge sheet in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, FirstClass, 6th Court, Latur. The case was committed to the Court ofSessions for trial in accordance with law. The case, in turn,came to be committed to the Sessions Court, Latur andassigned to the Additional Sessions Judge (Trial Court) for trialin accordance with law.6.The Trial Court framed the Charge (Exh.9). Theappellant pleaded not guilty. From the tenor of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence of theappellant appears to be Satish to have been killed by someoneelse and particularly by his in-laws.7.To bring home the charge, the prosecution Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 5 ::examined 17 witnesses and produced in evidence certaindocuments. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence inthe case, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as statedas above. 8.The learned counsel appointed to represent theappellant in this appeal would submit that, the case is based oncircumstantial evidence. There was no motive for the appellantto commit murder of his brother. The chain of circumstancesrelied on by the prosecution has neither been complete noreach and every circumstance thereof has been proved. Ourattention has also been drawn to a complaint (Exh.70) lodgedby the deceased against his in-laws and even wife, informingthe police to have been assaulted by them and perception ofthreat to his life at their hands. The learned counsel relied onfollowing authorities.(1)Sachin Bhaskarrao Bobde Vs. The State of Maharashtra2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2970(2)Bhujang Mahadu Panpatte Vs. State of Maharashtra2014 (3) BOM CR (Cri) 5189.The learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, submitthat, the appellant was found in custody of a dead body of his Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 6 ::real brother – Satish. Satish had suffered multiple injuries onhis person. The weapons of assault were also found in thebullock cart. The prosecution has examined witnesses toindicate that the deceased, appellant and appellant’s son hadbeen to the respective field by 8.30 in the morning. The sameindicates, the witnesses to have had last seen them together.There was strong motive for the appellant to commit murder ofhis brother. The appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/-from the deceased for marriage of his daughter. He was notreturning the same. Moreover, a borewell was taken incommon in the field. Some religious ceremony in that regardwas to be performed. The deceased was not ready toparticipate. The learned A.P.P. took us through the evidence ofeach and every witness and reiterated the reasons given by theTrial Court in support of the impugned judgment and order. 10.Let us advert to the evidence on record andreappreciate the same. We have also perused the judgmentimpugned herein. 11.The suggestions given to the prosecution witnesseson behalf of the appellant go long way to indicate the appellantto have admitted his brother Satish (deceased) to have met with Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 7 ::homicidal death. P.W.12 Dr. Prachi conducted post mortemexamination. She noticed following external injuries on theperson of the deceased.1)Stab injury over right chest at level of 3rd intercostalspace 4 cm. below clavicle, obliquely placed of size 5 x 2cm. Thoracic cavity deep. Margins clean cut, regular.Both the angles acutely directed down words towards leftside with oozing ofblood. Evidence of fracture of 4th ribpresent.2)Multiple abrasions over abdomen in upper quadrant inright and left side varying from size 4 x 0.5 cm. to 6 x 0.5cm., Reddish in colour. Margins blurred.3)Incised wound over back on right side at level of T 6 T7vertebra 4 cm. away from midline, obliquely placed ofsize 6 x 1.5 x 1 cm., Margins clean cut, regular. Reddishin colour.4)Stab injury over left right anteriorly over middle 1/3rdobliquely placed, of size 5 x 2 cm. bone deep. Marginsclean cut, regular. Both angles acute with oozing ofblood.5)Chop wound over right leg in lower 1/3rd 3 cm. aboveankle joint, obliquely placed over antero medial region ofsize 13 x 3 cm. bone deep. Fracture of underlying tibiabone. Margins clean cut. Reddish in colour withpresence of blood clots.6)Left leg chop wound Antero laterally in lower 1/3rdhorizontally placed of size 7 x 2 cm. bone deep withfracture of underlying tibia bone. Margins clean cut.Regular with blood cots.7)Incised wound over left leg horizontally placed 5 cm.below injury No.6 of size 2.1 x 1 x 0.5 cm. Margins cleancut with tailing on lateral side. Reddish in colour.8)Incised wound over left foot just below ankle joint Anterolaterally of size 6 x 2 x 1 cm. Reddish. Margins clean cut Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 8 ::with adherent blood clots.9)Chop injury over left leg upper 1/3rd Anteriorly placed ofsize 10 x 4 cm. bone deep with compound fracture ofunderlying tibia bone and fibula bone. Margins cleancut, Reddish with blood cots.10)Stab injury over middle 1/3rd of left arm, horizontallyplaced of size 4 x 2 cm. bone deep. Margins clean cut.Regular, both angles acute with oozing of blood.11)Incised wound over dorsum of lower 1/3rd of rightforearm. 7 cm. above wrist joint, obliquely placed of size3 x 1 x 0.5 cm. Margins cleancut regular. Reddish incolour.12)Incised wound over right palm over hypothenar regionobliquely placed of size 4 x 1.5 x 1.00 cm. Reddish.Margins clean cut with presence of blood clots.13)Chop wound over left wrist and left palm overhypothenar region of size 8 x 3 cm. bone deep withfracture of underlying carpal bones and injury tounderlying tissue. Margins clean cut. Reddish in colourwith blood clots.14)Laceration over left maxillary prominence of size 4 x 3cm. Reddish colour. Margins irregular ragged.15)Multiple abrasion over right and left frontal region varyingfrom 3 x 0.5 cm. to 3.5 x 0.5 cm. Reddish in colourmargins blurred.12.P.W.12 Dr. Prachi also noticed correspondinginternal injuries as follows :1)Fracture of 4th rib corresponding to injury No.1 inCol.No.172)Pleura punctured on right lung corresponding to injury Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 9 ::No.1 in Col. No.17.Right plural cavity filled with fluid blood about 1.5 liter.3)Stab injury to upper lobe of right lung of size 3 x 1.5 x 5cm. corresponding to injury No.1 in column No.17. Restof the lungs appeared pale and collapsed. Rest ofinternal organs intact and pale. According to P.W.12 Dr. Prachi the injuries on theperson of the deceased were ante mortem. In her opinion, thecause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to injury to vitalorgan – lung.13.The inquest panchanama (Exh.2) suggests numberof injuries on the person of the deceased. Scene of offencepanchanama (Exh.23) indicates that, Satish was found lyingdead in a bullock cart. Shirt on his person was seen torn. Inthe bullock cart, there were blood stained sickle, scythe etc. 14.The question is whether the appellant is the authorof the crime. The evidence of the informant P.W.1 Bibhishanindicates that he learnt in the village that Satish was assaultedin his field. He (informant) being Police Patil of the village,therefore, started towards the field of the deceased in his jeep.He was accompanied by 3 others namely Devanand Patil, Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 10 ::Jagannath Ghute, Trimbak Pathade and Vishnu Pathade.While the informant was on his way towards the field of thedeceased, he saw the appellant coming from opposite side inhis bullock cart. The informant, therefore, intercepted him. Oninterception, the informant and the others in his companynoticed dead body of Satish in the bullock cart. His evidencefurther indicates there were multiple injuries on the person ofSatish. Blood stained sickle, scythe etc. were also in thebullock cart. Shirt on the person of the deceased was torn.Since the informant realized something amiss and not anaccident as claimed by the appellant, he made a phone call toA.P.I. Shri Padwal (P.W.16). Shri Padwal, in turn, deputedP.H.C. Nagargoje (P.W.11) to go to the village and to see whatthe matter was. The informant’s evidence further indicates thatShri Nagargoje came to the village. He took the appellant intohis custody. Eqnuired with him. Whatever has been disclosed/stated by the appellant to Shri Nagargoje is not being referredto, since the same is inadmissible, being confession to police.15.The informant’s evidence further indicates that, aftera while, Shri Padwal arrived. He lodged report. Dead body ofSatish was taken to Government Hospital, Murum. Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 11 ::16.During cross-examination of P.W.1 Bibhishan, it hasbeen brought on record that, one Chandrakant, brother ofSuryakant and Ramakant Ghute, was murdered a year beforethe incident in question. He, however, claimed ignorance thatdeceased Satish was in the company of Chandrakant. Theinformant denied that Suryakant and Ramakant committedmurder of Satish with a view to take revenge of murder of theirbrother Chandrakant. This suggestion goes a long way toindicate the appellant to have admitted Satish met with ahomicidal death. It was also suggested to the informant that,appellant Dilip had told him that someone else had alreadymurdered Satish in the field. It was also suggested to him thatDilip (appellant) told that someone else had committed murderof Satish in the field and he was carrying the dead body in thebullock cart for cremation in another field.17.Pursuant to the phone call made by P.W.1 Bibhishan(informant), A.P.I. Padwal deputed Shri Nagargoje (P.W.11) tothe village. Evidence of Shri Nagargoje (P.W.11) indicates that,a dead body of Satish was in the bullock cart. There were threeweapons (stained with blood). Whatever was the response ofthe appellant to the questioning asked him by Shri Nagargoje(P.W.11) would be inadmissible in evidence, as is hit by Section Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 12 ::25 of the Evidence Act. The fact, however, remains that, ShriNagargoje (P.W.11) immediately visited the village. On havingseen the dead body in the bullock cart, took the appellant intohis custody. He was followed by A.P.I. Shri Padwal (P.W.16), towhom P.W.1 Bibhishan (informant) gave a report which wasregistered as F.I.R. 18.It was also suggested to P.W.11 Shri Nagargoje thatalready someone else had killed Satish in the field and theappellant was bringing back the dead body in a bullock cart forcremation.19.P.W.2 Fulchand was Teacher of Zilla Parishad. Hisservices were availed for 3 panchanamas. First one is thescene of offence panchanama (Exh.22). It contained two spots,one bullock cart and the place in an agricultural field. Hisevidence indicates that, dead body of Satish was in the bullockcart. Shirt on his person was torn. Satish had suffered multipleinjuries. The blood stained sickle, scythe etc. were in thebullock cart itself.20.Exh.23 is the panchanama relating to the scene ofoffence in the field. An axe was taken charge therefrom and Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 13 ::blood mixed earth as well. Whereas Exh.24 is the panchanama,whereunder clothes of the accused were seized.21.We have closely gone through the cross-examination of P.W.2 Fulchand to find nothing has beenbrought on record that would assist the appellant.22.P.W.3 Kailas is a witness to the panchanama(Exh.26) of seizure of clothes of the deceased. 23.P.W.4 Suvarna, widow of the deceased Satish andP.W.5 Suraj, son of the deceased, have deposed in one voice.According to them, the deceased left the house in the morningon 20/7/2015. Since he did not return home until 2.00 p.m.,P.W.5 Suraj received a phone of his maternal uncle, informingthe quarrel had taken place. P.W.5 Suraj, therefore, firstcontacted Satish on his phone. There was, however, noresponse. A call was, thereafter made to Chimnya (juvenile inconflict with law). He talked to P.W.4 Suvarna and told her thata quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellant.Chimnya was weeping while he talked to P.W.4 Suvarna. P.W.8Bibhishan Wakure was the brother-in-law of deceased (brotherof P.W.4 Suvarna). His evidence indicates that, having learnt Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 14 ::about the incident, he came to the village Ekurga. He saw hisbrother-in-law Satish dead in a bullock cart.24.P.W.4 Suvarna, P.W.5 Suraj and P.W.8 BibhishanWakure were subjected to search cross-examination. Theywere found somewhat economical with the truth. They deniedthe deceased to have had lodged a complaint with the police,alleging his wife and in-laws to have assaulted him on29/6/2015. Whereas the investigating officer has admitted thesaid fact. A certified copy of the complaint lodged by deceasedSatish against P.W.4 Suvarna and her relations is on record.The reason therefor appears to be that the agricultural landpurchased by the deceased at Ramwadi was initially cultivatedby his in-laws. It was later on taken back by him and quarrelhad, therefore, ensued. The house of the in-laws of theappellant is at village Ramwadi, about 25 Kms. away fromEkurga.25.P.W.6 Suryakant testified to have had received aphone call of Chimnya (juvenile in conflict with law), informinghim to have hunt something. He thought Chimnya to havekilled a wild pig. In response to the call made by Chimnya, hewent to his field. He saw Satish (deceased) lying injured in the Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 15 ::field. He was in the pool of blood. Both, the appellant andChimnya were there. They asked him to go away.26.The cross-examination of this witness indicates that,his brother Chandrakant was murdered about a year before theincident in question. Involvement of deceased Satish wassuspected. He denied to have killed Satish and gave falseevidence against the appellant.27.P.W.7 Balasaheb’s evidence is on the lines of theevidence of P.W.6 Suryakant. His evidence too indicates that,Chimnya (juvenile in conflict with law) told him to have got aShikar (hunt). He along with others, therefore, went to the fieldof the appellant. Both, the appellant and Chimnya (juvenile inconflict with law) were there. Deceased Satish was lying dead.He had suffered multiple injuries. An axe was lying by his side.28.P.W.9 Nandkumar and P.W.10 Angad testified tohave their agricultural lands adjoining the land of the deceasedand the appellant. Their evidence indicate that both of themwere in their respective fields by 8.00 in the morning on thefateful day. They saw appellant, his son Chimnya, a deceasedas well in their respective fields. Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 16 ::29.It has simply been brought on record that, in theadjoining field, there were sugarcane crops of the height ofabout to 10 ft. 30.P.W.13 Faruq was a Police Constable, who carriedviscera to F.S.L., Aurangabad. P.W.14 Chintamani is a witnessto the seizure of appellant’s motorbike under panchanama(Exh.48). P.W.15 Bhimashankar was a Circle Officer, who didthe sketch of the scene of offence.31.P.W.16 Rama Padwal was the investigating officer,who had reached the village in response to the call made byP.W.1 Bibhishan Ghute. It is in his evidence that, he haddeputed Shri Nagargoje (P.W.11) to immediately visit thevillage. His evidence indicates that, when he visited the village,he saw dead body of Satish in a bullock cart. Satish hadsuffered multiple injuries. It is he who drew the scene ofoffence panchanama and other panchanamas relating toseizure of clothes of both, the appellant and the deceased. It ishe who drew the inquest and even seized the motorbike of theappellant. Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 17 ::32.P.W.17 Dr. Mushir had obtained blood sample of theappellant for chemical analysis. While P.W.18 Dr. Snehatestified to have had examined the appellant on 21/7/2015.She issued injury certificate, indicating the appellant to havesuffered abrasion over right lower leg. The injury was simple innature.APPRECIATION :33.The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Themotive for committing murder of Satish was said to be ademand of Rs.70,000/- paid to the appellant as a hand loan forthe marriage of his daughter. There is another motive in thenature of the deceased to have refused to contribute forperforming Pooja of a taking up a new borewell in common.The evidence on record indicates that the appellant and thedeceased were real brothers. They had one more brother byname Bhagwat. The deceased was initially residing in Punealong with his wife and children. He purchased two plots atLatur. His share in the ancestral agricultural land was initiallycultivated by appellant Dilip. It was got back by him after awhile. He had then started residing at Murum. There is alsosome evidence to indicate that the deceased had purchased aland at Kolewadi. It was initially cultivated by his in-laws. The Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 18 ::deceased had got the land back to his possession. Exh.70indicates that, only about 15 days before his murder, he hadlodged a police report against his wife, father-in-law andbrother-in-law, alleging them to have assaulted him. It has alsobeen mentioned therein that they had threatened of committinghis murder. It appears that, the said quarrel took place over theland purchased by him at Kolewadi Shivar.34.Learned counsel for the appellant was, therefore,somewhat justified in contending and even deflecting theCourt’s attention from the main evidence to suggest thedeceased might have been killed by his wife and the in-laws. Itwas also brought to our notice and which appears from theevidence as well that, in spite of the incident to have takenplace by little past 10.00 in the morning, P.W.4 Suvarna (widowof the deceased) and her relations arrived late (post 5.00 p.m.).Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, indicates there wasnothing to suspect involvement of the widow of the deceasedand her relations from parental side. 35.So far as regards evidence of P.W.9 Nandkumarand P.W.10 Angad is concerned, who claim to have seen theappellant, his son and deceased in the field in the morning is Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 19 ::concerned, and the evidence of P.W.6 Suryakant and P.W.7Balasaheb to have been to the field of the appellant in responseto a call by Chimnya and to have seen the deceased lying in apool of blood inspires no confidence since their conductappears to be somewhat unnatural. Both these witnesses, afterhaving seen Satish to have been murdered, did not relate thesame to the police immediately.36.Many a time motive remains hidden. True, in caseof circumstantial evidence motive plays an important role. Inthe case in hand, the appellant admitted the deceased Satish tohave met with homicidal death. Suggestions given on hisbehalf to P.W.1 Bibhishan and P.W.11 Shri Nagargoje havealready been referred to hereinabove. He initially made a falseassertion to P.W.1 Bibhishan that the deceased Satish wasfound dead. It is, however, again reiterated that, on behalf ofthe appellant it was suggested to P.W.1 Bibhishan and P.W.11Shri Nagargoje that someone else had already killed Satish andthe appellant was taking the dead body for cremation in hisanother field. This goes a long way to infer the Trial Court evento have rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishableunder Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Then evidencereferred to hereinabove indicates the appellant was carrying the Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 20 ::dead body of Satish in a bullock cart. Satish had sufferedmultiple injuries on his person. Shirt on his person was torn.Blood stained sickle, scythe etc. were seized from the bullockcart itself. The appellant did not offer any reasonableexplanation as to how did Satish met with homicidal death.Learned A.P.P. was right in relying on the judgment of the ApexCourt in case of Prem Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [ 2023LiveLaw (SC) 2 ], wherein it has been observed that :-“16.4.1It is of course, the duty of prosecutionto lead the primary evidence of proving its casebeyond reasonable doubt but, when necessaryevidence had indeed been led, the correspondingburden was heavy on the appellant in terms ofSection 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as towhat had happened at the time of incident and asto how the death of the deceased occurred. Therehad not been any explanation on the part of theappellant and, as noticed, immediately after theincident, he attempted to create a false narrative ofaccidental drowning of the children. There hadnot been any specific response from the appellantin his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. either.”37.The C.A. reports (Exh.51 & 52) indicate the bloodgroup of both, the appellant and the deceased Satish was “A”.Almost all the articles seized by the investigating officer borneblood stains of blood group “A”. The appellant did not claim tohad scuffle with the deceased nor did he claim the deceased to Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 21 ::have first assaulted him. The appellant’s injury certificateindicates him to have suffered a minor and superficial injury.The prosecution was not under obligation to explain the same.Whatever the appellant told to P.W.1 Bibhishan, Police Patil ofthe village, could not be stated to be hit by Section 25 of theEvidence Act. A Full Bench judgment of this Court in case ofHiraman Mohurle (in jail) Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (2)Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 757 : 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 483, has held thatPolice Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act,1967 is not a “Police Officer” for the purpose of Section 25 ofthe Evidence Act.38. The Apex Court, in case of Dharma Radaka WalviVs. State of Maharashtra [ (2002) 10 SCC 233 ], held that, aconfession made to a Police Patil is not hit by Section 25 of theEvidence Act. An extra-judicial confession made to a PolicePatil of village has also been considered while confirming theconviction of the appellant imposed by the Trial Court and theAppellate Court as well.39.In our view, the dead body of Satish with multipleinjuries on his person was found in the custody of the appellant.The appellant is none other than the real brother of deceased Criminal Appeal No.296/2020:: 22 ::Satish. He was carrying the dead body for cremation. It was infact his obligation first to report the matter to the police if Satishhad received beating or assault at the hands of someone else.He was carrying the dead body for cremation. The appellantdid not offer any explanation to discharge his burden, even bypreponderance of probabilities under Section 106 of the IndianPenal Code. On reappreciating the entire evidence in the case,which has been referred to hereinabove, we find the Trial Courtto have rightly convicted the appellant. We have no reason totake a different view. The appeal, therefore, fails. It isdismissed.40.Fees of Mrs. Gunjal, learned counsel appointed forthe appellant is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees tenthousand).(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-