Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2019 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:10062-DB Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.211 OF 2019Pralhad s/o. Laxman Tode,Age : 48 years, Occ. Agri.,r/o. Antargaon, Tq. Naigaon,Dist.Nanded..AppellantVs.The State of Maharashtra..Respondent----Mr.P.S.Koshti, Advocate for appellantMrs.U.S.Bhosle, APP for respondent----ANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.603 OF 2020The State of Maharashtra..AppellantVs.Pralhad s/o. Laxman Tode..Respondent----Mrs.U.S.Bhosle, APP for appellantMr.P.S.Koshti, Advocate for respondent---- CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. RESERVED ON :APRIL 08, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON :MAY 03, 2024 JUDGMENT (PER R.G.AVACHAT, J.):- These appeals are being decided by this common judgmentsince they are interconnected. Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2019 is filedby a convict against the judgment of conviction and consequential
Facts
2Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020order of sentence dated 05.05.2017, passed by the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case No.44 of 2015, convicting himfor the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Codeand therefore, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. Theappellant was also prosecuted for the offences punishable underSections 307 and 309 of Indian Penal Code. He was, however,acquitted thereof. Neither the State nor the victim has preferred anyappeal against acquittal. Acquittal of the offence under Section 309of Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit suicide) has been passedon the ground of the said section to have been declaredunconstitutional. Another appeal (603 of 2020) is preferred by the Statefor enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death.2.The facts, giving rise to the present appeals, are asfollows:-The First Information Report (Exh.12) was lodged by PW 2- Narayan on 10.07.2015 by 09.20 in the morning. It is averred inthe FIR that PW 2 – Narayan along with his uncle Ashok (deceased)and his servant (PW 7 – Sakharam Pawar) had slept in the field. Theappellant came to the place whereat they were sleeping. He wasarmed with axe. He assaulted Ashok on his neck with axe. When 3Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020PW 2 – Narayan raised some voice, the appellant turned to him andattempted to assault him with axe. PW 2 – Narayan avoided thesame. The blow, however, fell on his stomach. The appellant thattime told PW 2 – Narayan that he had killed his (appellant’s) wife andson at his residence and then came to the field to kill Ashok. It isfurther averred in the FIR that the appellant consumed somepoisonous substance as an attempt to commit suicide. Based on theFIR (Exh.12), crime vide C.R. No.40 of 2015, came to be registeredfor the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 ofIndian Penal Code. 3.PW 14 – Santosh Patil, A.P.I., was entrusted with theinvestigation. Somebody had already informed the police about theassault on Ashok. A station-diary entry to that effect was made byPW 13 – Maroti Chavan, P.S.I. Both PW 13 and PW 14 paid visit to thevillage Antargaon and particularly, both the places, i.e. house of theappellant and agricultural field of Ashok (deceased). The house ofthe appellant was locked from outside. It was broken open in thepresence of panchas. After having broken open the house, the wifeand son of the appellant were found dead lying in a pool of blood.The scene of offence panchnama (Exh.10) was drawn. Then,panchnama relating to the another crime scene in the field of 4Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020deceased Ashok (Exh.23) was drawn. The appellant was admitted tohospital. The appellant was arrested after he was recovered.Clothes on his person were seized. A knife and other articles werealready seized from the house of the appellant, while axe was seizedfrom the field of Ashok (deceased). Inquest was conducted on themortal remains of three deceased Gaubai, Hanmant and Ashok underpanchnamas (Exhs.41 and 42). Thereafter, their dead bodies weresubjected to postmortem examination. Statements of the personsacquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case wererecorded. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet wasfiled against the appellant before learned Judicial Magistrate, FirstClass, Naigaon Bazar, Dist. Nanded. Learned Magistrate committedthe case to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Biloli (trial court). Thetrial court framed Charge (Exh.2). The appellant pleaded not guilty.His defence was of false implication.4.The prosecution to establish the charge, examinedfourteen witnesses and adduced in evidence certain documents. Thetrial court on appreciation of the evidence before him in the case,convicted the appellant as stated above.5.Learned counsel appointed to represent the appellantwould submit that the case in relation to the murder of wife and son
Legal Reasoning
18Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020the appellant consumed some poisonous substance and took tworounds around the dead body of Ashok. He then threw up. PW 3 –Sambhaji had accompanied PW 2 – Narayan and the appellant to theRural Hospital, Naigaon, for treatment. The appellant, thereafter,was shifted to Medical College Hospital at Nanded. He was indoorpatient there for about 20 days. In our view, he had no reason toconsume poisonous substance with intention to commit suicide.Based on the eye-witnesses account of PW 2 – Narayan and PW 7 -Sakharam, the prosecution has proved the appellant to havecommitted murder of his real brother Ashok in the field. 27.The appellant’s wife Gaubai and son Hanmant werefound dead in the pool of blood in the appellant’s house on the samenight. The house was locked from outside. The lock was broken inthe presence of panchas. PW 6 – Datta had seen the appellantproceeding towards his field armed with axe. Same suggests thatthe appellant, after having killed his wife and son, left the house andproceeded towards the field.28.The appellant gave additional statement under Section313 of Cr.P.C. According to him, on the fateful night, he was in hisfield. He meant to say that he was not home. According to him, hisanother son Madhav had gone to the house of his friend for study. 19Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020He was informed by his relations that someone killed his wife andson. Therefore, he started proceeding towards his house. He thenlearnt that his brother Ashok too was murdered in his field. He waskilled by his sons and some unknown persons. According to him,when he was proceeding towards his house, 3-4 unknown personsoverpowered him and forcibly administered poisonous substance.They brought him to Akhada whereat, Ashok was lying dead.According to him, because of administration of poison, he had boutsof vomiting. When he gained consciousness, he realised to havebeen in the hospital at Nanded. According to him, deceased Ashokwanted to have illicit relationship with his wife. His sons werepersuading him not to be after the wife of the appellant. Accordingto him, he has been falsely implicated by the children of deceasedAshok.29.It is true that the appellant is not bound to lead anydefence evidence; but the version he has come with soundsunreasonable. We have already observed above that based on theeye witnesses account of informant PW 2 - Narayan and PW 7 –Sakharam, it is proved that the appellant committed murder of hisbrother Ashok. The tenor of cross-examination of the witnessesindicates that the appellant was suspecting illicit relationship 20Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020between his wife Gaubai and deceased Ashok. The motive behindcommission of three murders appears to be the appellant to havesuspected such relationship.30.On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, we find noreason to take a view different than one taken by the trial court inconvicting the appellant for the offence of murder andconsequentially, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. In our view,the trial court ought to have passed separate conviction for eachmurder and passed separate sentence in relation thereto. Same hasnot been done. Be that as it may.31.So far as the State’s appeal for enhancement of sentencefrom life to death is concerned, we find it to be not rarest of rarecase inspite of there being three murders committed by theappellant. When this appeal came up for hearing by its turn, theappellant has already undergone sentence of little over eight andhalf years. In view of Manoj and others vs. State of MadhyaPradesh, 2023(2)SCC 353, this Court had called certain reportsfrom the jail authorities. The reports have been placed on record.The report of Medical Officer of open prison, Amravati, indicates theappellant to have been keeping good health. The Superintendent ofOpen Prison, Amravati, has certified the appellant to be of good 21Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020behaviour. He also certified the appellant to have never misbehavedin jail. It has also been informed that the appellant has never beengranted remission. It is further informed that the appellant is doingagricultural work honestly. His conduct is good. The Psychiatrist’sreport in relation to the appellant indicates :-“Clinical Impressions:Pralhad self reported information, coupled with hisscored on psychological measures, suggest adiagnosis of no depressive and psychotic, manicobsessive features at present.”32.Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgmentin the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC898. He referred to paragraph 204 of the judgment, which pertainsto mitigating circumstances. The same is reproduced below:-204. Dr. Chitaley has suggested these mitigatingfactors:Mitigating circumstances: In the exercise of itsdiscretion in the above cases, the Court shall take intoaccount the following circumstances : (1) That the offence was committed under theinfluence of extreme mental or emotionaldisturbance.(2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young orold, he shall not be sentenced to death. 22Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020(3) The probability that the accused would notcommit criminal acts of violence as would constitute acontinuing threat to society.(4) The probability that the accused can be reformedand rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence provethat the accused does not satisfy the conditions 3 and4 above.(5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case theaccused believed that he was morally justified incommitting the offence.(6) That the accused acted under the duress ordomination of another person.(7) That the condition of the accused showed that hewas mentally defective and that the said defectimpaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality ofhis conduct. He then relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of MachhiSingh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957, wherein, it hasbeen observed thus:-33.In this background the guidelines indicated inBachan Singh's case (supra) will have to be culled outand applied to the facts of each individual case wherethe question of imposing of death sentences arises.The following propositions emerge from BachanSingh's case:(i) the extreme penalty of death need not beinflicted except in gravest cases of extremeculpability; 23Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020(ii) Before opting for the death penalty thecircumstances of the 'offender' also require to betaken into consideration along with the circumstancesof the 'crime'.(iii)Life imprisonment is the rule and deathsentence is an exception. In other words deathsentence must be imposed only when lifeimprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequatepunishment having regard to the relevantcircumstances of the crime, and provided, and onlyprovided the option to impose sentence ofimprisonment for life cannot be conscientiouslyexercised having regard to the nature andcircumstances of the crime and all the relevantcircumstances.(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigatingcircumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so themitigating circumstances has to be accorded fullweightage and a just balance has to be struckbetween the aggravating and the mitigatingcircumstances before the option is exercised. 33.As against this, learned APP only submitted that it is ararest of rare case and the appellant committed three murders andtherefore, deserves death sentence. No aggravating circumstanceshave been brought to our notice. On the contrary, it is reiteratedthat the reports are received from the jail authority informing theappellant is of good behaviour. He never misbehaved in jail.Considering his conduct, he has been kept in open prison at 24Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020Amravati. It needs no mention that a prisoner is kept in open prisonwhen his conduct is found good. No submissions were advancedregarding imposing sentence of life imprisonment to mean till theend of natural life.34.In the above factual backdrop and for the reasons givenherein above, we find that both the appeal deserve to be dismissed.35.Needless to mention that in an appeal for enhancementof sentence from life imprisonment to death, the appellant/Stateought to have urged for taking up such appeal for hearingimmediately/forthwith. It is reiterated that the appellant has, so far,been behind the bars for eight and half years.36.After having held the appellant guilty of the offence ofmurder, the trial court had heard both the appellant and learnedAPP-in-charge who conducted the case. Learned APP had submittedbefore the trial court as under:-“26.………..………….….………….. Heard ld. App Mr.D.V.Kulkarni onthe point of sentence, he submitted that the accusedhas committed the murder of his wife, son andbrother with some ulterior motive, it is a seriousoffence which affect the society, hence, sentence asper law be awarded. 25Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020Same indicates that the State was not insistent to see that theappellant was awarded death sentence. It suggests that accordingto learned APP-in-charge of the case, it was not the rarest of rarecase and therefore, he made such submissions before the trial Court.37.In the result, the appeals are hereby dismissed.[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.][R.G. AVACHAT, J.]KBP
Arguments
5Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. The appellantwas not seen at his home nor is there any evidence to indicate himto have been last seen in the company of the deceased wife and son.So far as regards the murder of Ashok is concerned, learned counselwould submit that the family members of Ashok (deceased) had,time and again, asked him not to keep relationship with Gaubai(deceased). There, therefore, used to be frequent quarrels betweenAshok on one hand and his family members on the other. His deathtook place in the midnight. The so called eye-witnesses were notpresent at the crime scene. According to learned counsel, they wereplanted witnesses. They are interested witnesses. According to him,there are material contradictions between the evidence of the eyewitnesses namely, PW 2 – Narayan and PW 7 – Sakharam.Statements of the witnesses have been recorded late. There is noevidence to corroborate the evidence of the interested witnesses.According to him, the extra-judicial confession is very weak piece ofevidence. Same has not been corroborated. The house of theappellant was locked. Key there of was not recovered nor discoveredat the instance of the appellant. The C.A. reports do not carry muchrelevance since the carrier of the articles to C.F.S.L. has not beenexamined. Possibility of tampering with those articles also couldnot be ruled out. According to him, the case of murder of wife and 6Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020son of the appellant was based on circumstantial evidence. Thecircumstances relied on have neither been proved nor do theyconstitute the complete chain to unerringly point out the guilt of theappellant and of none else.6.On the submission of learned APP for enhancement ofsentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant wouldsubmit that the appellant has been behind the bars since01.07.2015. His conduct in jail is very good. He is, therefore, kept inopen prison. The reports in that regards solicited by this court fromthe authorities concerned were referred to and relied on.7.Learned APP would, on the other hand, submit that theappellant has committed three brutal murders. According to her, thetrial court ought to have imposed death sentence on the appellant.According to her, it is a rarest of rare case. She took us through theevidence of each witness, to ultimately urge for dismissal of theconvict’s appeal and allowing of the appeal for enhancement filed bythe State.8.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused theevidence on record. Also perused the judgment impugned herein. 7Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.20209.Let us advert to the evidence on record and appreciatethe same. PW 2 – Narayan is nephew of the appellant. DeceasedAshok was the appellant’s real brother. Ramkishan, father of PW 2 –Narayan, was the third brother of the appellant and deceased Ashok.The appellant would reside in the village along with his wife and twosons namely, Gaubai, Hanmant and Madhav, respectively. On thegiven night, Madhav was not home. It is in the evidence of PW 2 –Narayan that he along with his uncle Ashok (deceased) and theiremployee Sakharam (PW 7) were asleep in their field. They weresleeping on separate wooden cots at a distance of 5 ft. between eachof them. At about 02.00 in the intervening night of 9th and 10th July,2015, he heard some noise. Both he and PW 7 – Sakharam,therefore, woke up. Sakharam had a torch with him. He switched iton. They saw the appellant to have assaulted on the neck of Ashokwith axe. He made shouts “A...A...A”. He then questioned theappellant as to why did he assault Ashok. The appellant, thereafter,replied him to have come there just after having killed his wife andson (Gaubai and Hanmant). The appellant then attempted to giveaxe blow on the person of PW 2 – Narayan. He avoided the blow.The blow, however, fell on his stomach. The appellant, thereafter,proceeded towards Sakharam (PW 7) to assault him. The appellant, 8Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020thereafter, went towards his own cattle-shed. It is further in hisevidence that he immediately went to his village Manur, half km.away from the scene of offence and informed his paternal aunt andher husband Balaji Patil. All of them then came back to the field. Itis further in his evidence that while they were around the dead bodyof Ashok, the appellant came. He took two rounds around the deadbody of Ashok. The appellant then had bouts of vomiting. He,thereafter, slept on wooden cot of Sakharam (PW 7). PW 2 –Narayan immediately called his aunt Shantabai, wife of Ashok. Someof the villagers gathered. One Sambhaji Tode (PW 3) took him andthe appellant to the hospital for treatment. The police recorded hisstatement (FIR – Exh.12) in rural hospital at Naigaon. It is further inhis evidence that the appellant used to beat up his wife Gaubai(deceased) for trifle reasons. The appellant was hot-tempered. Hewould suspect each and every act of his family members. PW 2 –Narayan referred to the FIR (Exh.12) and identified his signaturethereon. According to him, his statement was also recorded by theJudicial Magistrate. His statement (Exh.13) recorded under Section164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also referred to him.10.PW 2 – Narayan was subjected to a searching cross-examination. He was suggested that even after receiving blow of 9Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020axe, he was conscious oriented and able to speak. This suggestiongoes a long way to indicate the appellant to have admitted that PW 2– Narayan was given axe blow. PW 2 – Narayan was confronted withthe FIR (Exh.12). Following matter was admitted to have not beenstated by him to police in the FIR :-5- I made a statement before police that I myselfand Sakharam Pawar was slept on the wooden cot(Baj). l made a statement before police thatSakharam Pawar wake up from the sleep and he onthe torch towards the sound and Sakharam Pawarwas having torch in his hand. I made a statementbefore police that accused Pralhad after the incidentwent towards his own cattle shed (Akhada). I madestatement before the police that accused Pralhadwent towards Sakharam Pawar to give a blow. I madea statement before the police that Sakharam Pawarcame along with me to Manur. …………….Same suggests him to have made some improvement over hiscontentions in the FIR. He also admitted that police constable hadaccompanied him in the court at Kandhar. This suggestion was inrelation to recording of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Hedenied that his father and deceased Ashok were members of jointfamily. He has, however, admitted that his father and deceasedAshok were residing in their house built by his grandfather; whereasthe appellant was residing in a house, which was in dilapidatedcondition. 10Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.202011.It was further suggested to PW 2 – Narayan that therewas illicit relationship between Ashok and Gaubai (wife of appellant).Two days before the incident, there was quarrel among the familymembers of Ashok over his relationship with Gaubai. It was alsosuggested to him that Ashok had asked Gaubai to leave theappellant and children and start residing with him. All thesesuggestions have been denied by this witness. It is also brought onrecord through the cross-examination of PW 2 – Narayan that thehouse of Pralhad (appellant) was located in a thickly populated area.He, however, claimed ignorance about the appellant to have notbeen present at his residence on the fateful night. 12.PW 7 – Sakharam gave his evidence consistent with theevidence of PW 2 – Narayan. It is in his evidence that he hailed fromvillage Mahati, Tq. Umri. He was serving with Ashok (deceased) asfarm labour. It is in his evidence that on the fateful night, PW 2 –Narayan, he himself and Ashok were asleep on separate wooden cotsin the agricultural field. On hearing some noise, he and PW 2 –Narayan woke up. He switched on the torch. He saw the appellantto have axed Ashok. It is further in his evidence that the appellantsuspected the deceased Ashok to have illicit relationship with hiswife. He, therefore, killed him. It is further in his evidence that the 11Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020appellant then assaulted PW 2 – Narayan on his thigh. It is further inhis evidence that he accompanied PW 2 – Narayan to village Manurand informed the incident to the sister and brother-in-law of Ashok.All of them immediately came back to the field. It is further in hisevidence that the appellant took two rounds around the dead body ofAshok. The appellant then had bouts of vomiting. The appellant andNarayan were taken to the hospital for treatment. 13.PW 7 – Sakharam too was subjected to searching cross-examination. He claimed ignorance as to the family members ofdeceased Ashok to have advised him (Ashok) not to keeprelationship with the wife of the appellant. He also claimedignorance that there was, therefore, dispute among the familymembers of Ashok. He denied to have not witnessed the incident. 14.PW 8 – Maruti Shinde is witness to the scene of offencepanchnama (Exh.23), drawn in the field. His evidence indicates thatan axe, pesticide-tin, a shoe, chappal, blood-mixed clay, Baniyan,gunny-bag, blanket, etc. were seized under panchnama (Exh.23)15.PW 1 is witness to the scene of offence panchnama(Exh.10) drawn at the house of the appellant. It is in his evidencethat the police broke open the lock of the house of the appellant on 12Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.202010.07.2015. On breaking open the house, Gaubai and her sonHanmant were found dead in a pool of blood. There were six bags offertilizers. Those were stained with blood. He also saw blood stainson the wall of the room. One bicycle was there in the room. Onewooden cot was there. Gaubai had suffered neck-cut injury. A knifewas lying between the two dead bodies. The police officials seizedall those articles and drew panchnama (Exh.10). According to thiswitness, photographs of the scene of offence were also snapped.During his cross-examination, he could not give the exact boundariesof the house of the appellant. He admitted that there was nosignature on the packet containing cotton swab. 16.PW 3 – Sambhaji’s evidence is to the effect that he knewthe appellant and PW 2 – Narayan as well. He was their distantrelative. On hearing hue and cry on the night of 10.07.2015, hewoke up and came out of his house to see what had happened. Hewas informed that the appellant committed murder of his brotherAshok in the field. He, therefore, immediately, rushed to the fieldand saw Ashok was lying on the wooden cot. He also saw theappellant was laid on another cot. He noticed one axe near theappellant. It is further in his evidence that he saw the appellant hadbouts of vomiting. Sambhaji, therefore, called vehicle. He 13Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020accompanied to take the appellant and PW 2 – Narayan for treatmentin the hospital at Naigaon. It is further in his evidence that on way tothe hospital, PW 2 – Narayan narrated the entire incident and howthe appellant axed his brother Ashok.During cross-examination,whatever he has deposed to in examination-in-chief was disputed.He too was suggested that there was illicit relationship between thedeceased Ashok and Gaubai (deceased), wife of the appellant. Hedenied the same.17.PW 4 – Ananda’s evidence indicates that he knew bothappellant and deceased Ashok. It is in his evidence that by 3:00 inthe night, he heard some noise on the road. He came out of thehouse. The family members of Ashok were crying. He learnt thatAshok was killed in the field. He, therefore, rushed to the field andsaw Ashok dead. He also saw the appellant was lying on the nearbycot. There was axe by the appellant’s side. It is further in hisevidence that while he returned to the village, the police had alreadyarrived. He peeped into the house of the appellant to notice theappellant’s wife and son lying dead in the pool of blood. Thesuggestion indicating the appellant’s defence were put to him. Sincehe was not eye-witness to the incident, he was not subjected to asearching cross-examination. 14Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.202018.PW 5 – Saraswati is the sister of deceased Ashok andappellant as well. It is in her evidence that PW 2 – Narayan hadcome to her residence in the dead of night. He told her the appellantto have committed murder of Ashok. She along with her husband,therefore, accompanied PW 2 – Narayan to Ashok’s field. It is furtherin her evidence that she saw the dead body of Ashok in the field.She then visited the house of the appellant and saw his wife and sondead. During her cross-examination, it is brought on record thatwhile she reached the crime scene, no one was present except them.It is further in her evidence that the appellant arrived during theirpresence at the spot. She denied PW 2 – Narayan to have notrelated her the appellant to have murdered Ashok.19.PW 6 – Datta’s evidence indicates that he knew deceasedAshok, the appellant and their family members. It is in his evidencethat by 01.30 a.m., he woke up to answer the nature’s call.According to him, he was sleeping near Maroti temple in the villageon that night. He saw the appellant proceeded towards his fieldarmed with an axe. It is further in his evidence that he woke up allhis family members and proceeded towards the field of Ashok. Hesaw Ashok had died and the appellant was vomiting. The appellant’ssister, his nephew and some others were present there. Except 15Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020disputing his version in the examination-in-chief, this witness wasnot subjected to searching cross-examination.20.PW 9 – Dr.Ananda’s evidence indicates that he wasmedical officer at rural hospital, Naigaon, on 10.07.2015. Accordingto him, he examined the appellant, who was brought by police andhis relatives. He extended the appellant primary medical treatmentand referred him to Civil Hospital, Nanded, and issued certificate(Exh.25) to that effect. The certificate indicates it to be a case of`organophosphorus poisoning’. His evidence further show that heexamined PW 2 – Narayan to notice contused abrasion on his lumberregion. The injuries were simple in nature.21.PW 10 – Dr.Bhurke testified that he was Asst. Professor atMedical College, Nanded. The police had brought the appellant tothe hospital on 10.07.2015. He examined the appellant and foundhe was not in a position to talk. The police report submitted to himindicates the appellant to have consumed poison. His evidencefurther indicates that the appellant’s condition was not good. Therewere symptoms of poisoning. He, therefore, admitted him to thehospital. The appellant was discharged from the hospital on01.08.2015, i.e. about 20 days after the incident of murder of Ashokand others. PW 10 – Dr. Bhurke referred to the appellant’s dischargecard (Exh.28). 16Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.202022.PW 11 – Prakash is a witness to the seizure of clothes onthe person of the appellant on 12.07.2015. He referred to thepanchnama (Exh.30) drawn in that regard.23.PW 12 - Dr. Pushpak conducted postmortem examinationon the mortal remains of Gaubai, Hanmant and Ashok. He gavedetails of the injuries on their person. According to him, the cause ofdeath of all the three was asphyxia due to cut-throat. Thepostmortem report of the deceased are at Exhs.34, 35 and 36.24.PW 13 – Maroti Chavan is A.P.I., attached to Kuntur PoliceStation on 10.07.2015. It is in his evidence that API Patil hadinformed him to have learnt from Ananda Shinde (PW 4) ofAntargaon that the appellant committed murder of his brother. He,therefore, made the station-diary entry to that effect. The station-diary entry has been tendered in evidence vide Exh.38. It is furtherin his evidence that he accompanied API Patil (PW 14) to villageAntargaon.25.PW 14 did investigation of the crime. His evidenceindicates that pursuant to the intimation about the incident, herushed to the village. He then visited the Rural Hospital, Naigaon.He then visited the house of the appellant. It was locked. The 17Cri. Appeal Nos.211.19 and 602.2020entrance door of the house was broken open to find the wife andson of the appellant were lying in the pool of blood. His evidencefurther indicates that he drew the scene of offence panchnama andseized articles from both the crime scenes. He sent all those articlesto C.F.S.L. for chemical analysis and report. His evidence furtherindicates that the inquest on the mortal remains of the three wereconducted in the presence of the panchas.26.Above referred was the evidence in the case. PW 2 –Narayan is none other than the son of real brother of the appellantand deceased Ashok. He, therefore, cannot be branded as interestedwitness. He did not have reason to give false evidence against hisuncle (appellant). His injury certificate (Exh.26) indicates hispresence at the crime scene in the field. PW 7 – Sakharam, althougha servant of deceased Ashok, was naturally bound to be in the field.He was engaged for agricultural operations. We do not find anyreason to disbelieve evidence of both PW 2 – Narayan and PW 7 –Sakharam. Their evidence indicates the appellant to have axedAshok. They witnessed the same. Their evidence further indicatesthat they went to the house of the sister (PW 5 Saraswati) of theappellant and deceased Ashok. She along with her husband BalajiPatil came to the field of Ashok. There is evidence to indicate that