Latur v. Bodke Patil
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:19734-DB {1} APEAL-683-2018IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2018Govind s/o Taterao Suryawanshi,Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o: Village Halki, Taluka: Shirur,Anantpal, District: Latur.[At Present the appellant is in NashikCentral Jail, Nashik Road, Nashik]...APPELLANT[Orig. Accused No. 1]VERSUSThe State of Maharashtra,through the Police StationShirur Anantpal, Taluka: Shirur,Anantpal, District: Latur. ...RESPONDENT Ms. Poonam V. Bodke Patil, Advocate for appellantMrs. Uma S. Bhosale, APP for respondent-StateWITH APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 232 OF 2018The State of Maharashtra,through the Police StationShirur Anantpal, Taluka: Shirur,Anantpal, District: Latur. ...APPLICANTVERSUS1.Govind s/o Taterao Suryawanshi,Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o: Village Halki, Taluka: Shirur,Anantpal, District: Latur.2.Maroti s/o Hariba SuryawanshiAge: 63 years, Occupation: Agriculture,R/o Halki, taluka Shirur AnantpalDistrict Latur.Bhagyawant Punde
Legal Reasoning
{21} APEAL-683-2018gksrk- eh o egknso ok?ks ?kkc:u rsFkwu fto okpowu iGwu xsyks- rsloZt.k ;k nks?kkaukgh ftoar tkow nsow udk vls Eg.kr gksrs- R;kuarjvkEgh iGr xkoh okatj[ksMk ;sFks xsyks- R;kuarj vankts lOoklkr ok-lqekjkl letys dh jkeHkkm ok?ks gk tkxhp ej.k ikoyk vkgs- R;kuarjek>s ek>s MkOks ik;kyk tkLr ekj ykxysus eh byktklkBh [kktxhnok[kkuk xjM gkWLihVy ykrqj ;sFks xsyks-ÞPortion Mark ‘C’Þrjh vkePks xkokrhy ek>k fe= jkeHkkm ok?ks o gYdh ;sFkhy xksfoanrkrsjko lq;Zoa’kh ;kaps cÚ;klP;k fnolka iqfoZ iklqu vankts ,d rs lOok,dj ‘ksrhpk okn pkyw gksrk- rks okn dksVkZr gksrk- dksVkZus R;koknkP;k ‘ksrhpk fudky jkeHkkm ok?ks ;kaP;k cktwus fnysyk gksrk- R;kpkjkx eukr /k:u fn- 14@10@2015 jks- 18-30 ok- lq-ß 25.Exhibit-109, Portion Mark ‘A’ from his supplementarystatement is as follows:ÞR;kuarj vkt eyk vk.kwu ikpO;k vuksG[kh O;Drhyk nk[koys R;kckcr ek>s lkax.ks vls dh vkEgkyk fn- 14@10@2015 jksth ekj.kkjkikpok vuksG[kh O;Drh rks gkp vkgs- eh rqeps le{k R;kyk R;kps ukofopkjys vlrk R;kus R;kps uko jkgqy mQZ ckcklkgsc dkacGs vlslkafxrys o R;kyk egknso ok?ks ;kauhi.k vksG[kys- vkEgkyk ekj.kkjk ojkeHkkm ok?ks ;kauk ekj.kkjk gk ikpok vuksG[kh O;Drh jkgqy mQZckcklkgsc dkacGs gkp vkgs-ß 26.It is well settled by catena of decisions of the ApexCourt that “Statement of hostile witness can be relied on by theCourt, to the extent it supports prosecution case and iscorroborated by other evidence.”Bhagyawant Punde {22} APEAL-683-201827.In Prem Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)4, it is heldthat, “such part of evidence of a hostile witness which is foundto be credible could be taken into consideration and it is notnecessary to discard the entire evidence.”28.In “Bhajju V/s State of Madhya Pradesh5”, the ApexCourt held :“35.Now, we shall discuss the effect of hostilewitnesses as well as the worth of the defence putforward on behalf of the Appellant/accused. Normally,when a witness deposes contrary to the stand of theprosecution and his own statement recorded underSection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure., theprosecutor, with the permission of the Court, can prayto the Court for declaring that witness hostile and forgranting leave to cross-examine the said witness. Ifsuch a permission is granted by the Court then thewitness is subjected to cross-examination by theprosecutor as well as an opportunity is provided to thedefence to cross-examine such witnesses, if he sodesires. In other words, there is a limitedexamination-in-chief, cross-examination by theprosecutor and cross-examination by the counsel forthe accused. It is admissible to use the examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examination of the saidwitness in so far as it supports the case of theprosecution. 36.It is settled law that the evidence of hostilewitnesses can also be relied upon by the prosecutionto the extent to which it supports the prosecutionversion of the incident. The evidence of suchwitnesses cannot be treated as washed off therecords, it remains admissible in trial and there is nolegal bar to base the conviction of the accused upon4(2023) 3 SCC 3725(2012) 4 SCC 327Bhagyawant Punde {23} APEAL-683-2018such testimony, if corroborated by other reliableevidence. Section 154 of the Act enables the Court, inits discretion, to permit the person, who calls awitness, to put any question to him which might beput in cross-examination by the adverse party.”In the light of above observations and consideringthe attending circumstances, we cannot accept arguments of theaccused that since PW3 is declared hostile, his evidence is liableto be discarded from consideration. We find that Exhibit-77,Exhibit-108 collectively and Exhibit-109 corroborate the evidenceof PW4 and support the prosecution case. 29.By relying on Privy Council decision in Brij BhushanSingh v. Emperor, it is argued by the defence that statementunder Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence.30.PW3 in cross examination by learned APP hasadmitted that his statement was recorded before the Court.When the statement shown and read over to him he admitted itto be the same. He had stated that contents of said statementare true and correct and he has signed it. This statement ismarked (Exhibit-77). In this statement he has stated that on14.10.2015 he, deceased Rambhau and PW4 had gone to Halkion motorcycle for bringing mutton. After purchasing mutton theyBhagyawant Punde {24} APEAL-683-2018were returning back at about 6.30 pm. On a bridge prior to Halkiwhile returning towards the village five persons GovindSuryawanshi, Taterao Suryawanshi, Maruti Suryawanshi and oneunknown person stopped their vehicle. They all are from Halki.Govind Suryawanshi assaulted Rambhau with axe on the back ofhead and forehead. He was trying to intervene. In the saidassault Rambhau died on the spot. Thereafter accused saidMadhav should be caught. That time Madhav ran away. Afterconfirming Rambhau’s death he went to the village and informedPolice Patil. 31.It is settled legal position that statement underSection 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence. In Vijaya Singh& Another vs. State of Uttarakhand6, the Apex Court hasobserved:“27.The jurisprudence concerning a statementunder Section 164 CrPC is fairly clear. Such astatement is not considered as a substantivepiece of evidence, as substantive oral evidenceis one which is deposed before the Court and issubjected to cross-examination. However,Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872makes it clear that a statement under Section164 CrPC could be used for both corroborationand contradiction. It could be used tocorroborate the testimonies of other witnesses.28.Considering the conceptual requirement of6(2025) 3 SC 378Bhagyawant Punde {25} APEAL-683-2018recording a statement before a JudicialMagistrate during the course of investigationand the utility thereof, as prescribed in Section157 of Evidence Act, it could be observed that astatement under Section 164, although not asubstantive piece of evidence, not only meetsthe test of relevancy but could also be used forthe purposes of contradiction and corroboration.A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPCserves a special purpose in a criminalinvestigation as a greater amount of credibilityis attached to it for being recorded by a JudicialMagistrate and not by the Investigating Officer.A statement under Section 164 CrPC is notsubjected to the constrains attached with astatement under Section 161 CrPC and thevigour of Section 162 CrPC does not apply to astatement under Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, itmust be considered on a better footing. _ _ _ _”In view of above enunciation of law, said argument ofthe accused is liable to be rejected. 32.It is argued on behalf of the defence that no bloodwas detected on the axe and therefore, CA report does notsupport the prosecution case.Since we have found the evidence of eye witnessPW4 to be reliable, cogent and trustworthy which is corroboratedby the medical evidence and as axe is recovered from theaccused, in our view, merely because no blood was found on theaxe and on the clothes of accused, the prosecution case cannotbe disbelieved in the entirety.Bhagyawant Punde {26} APEAL-683-201833.It is also argued that recovery of axe was notvoluntary, as the accused was handcuffed at the relevant time.In support of this submission reliance is placed on Deoraj DejuSuvarna and Etc. vs. State of Maharashtra7, wherein it isobserved;“There is another infirmity with regard to recovery ofsword at the pointing out of Raju alias Rajendra VijayanPille and of chopper at the pointing out of Deoraj DejuSuvarna. P.W. 10 Nandu Namdeo Adsul, the publicpanch of recovery of chopper, at the pointing out ofDeoraj Deju Suvarna, states that at the time of therecovery the accused was in handcuffs. In respect ofRaju alias Rajendra Vijayana Pille we find that in therecovery memo Exhibits 25 and 25A, it is mentionedthat his left hand was handcuffed. This being theposition it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt thatthe recovery was voluntary and not the result ofduress, threat or pressure by the police authorities.Recoveries made while accused are hand cuffed, in ouropinion, can be said to be violative of fundamentalright enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution ofIndia. We are fortified, in our view, by a Division Benchdecision of our own court reported in 1992 Cri LJ 3034Cri LJ 3034 Shankar Raju Banglorkar v. State of Goa.”In the case in hand PW1, panch to the memorandumand seizure panchnama of axe, in the cross examination hasstated that when police asked the accused by which weapon hehad beaten the victim, he was handcuffed. Merely because at the71994 CRI LJ 3602Bhagyawant Punde {27} APEAL-683-2018time of interrogation accused was handcuffed is not sufficient todiscard the memorandum as well as seizure panchnama. PW1has not stated that at the time of recording memorandumstatement of the accused and seizure, he was handcuffed.Therefore, this case law is of no help to the accused. 34.Next submission is that recovery is from the openplace and it is an ordinary agricultural implement used by all theagriculturists and therefore not much importance be given to therecovery of axe and on that basis appellant cannot be convicted.In support of this submission reliance is placed on Vinodbhai vs.State of Kerala8, wherein the Apex Court by relying on ManojKumar Soni v. State of M.P.9, has held:“22. A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se,unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, bedeemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find itimplausible. Although disclosure statements holdsignificance as a contributing factor in unriddling acase, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece ofevidence sufficient on its own and without anythingmore to bring home the charges beyond reasonabledoubt.”We do not find any merit in the said submission as the axewas concealed by appellant on the roof of fowl house. Since the8Criminal Appeal No. 1730/201792023 SCC OnLine 984Bhagyawant Punde {28} APEAL-683-2018appellant is convicted by relying on the evidence of eye witnessPW4, this not a case that only on the basis of recovery at theinstance of appellant, he was convicted.35.There is no substance in the argument of theaccused that there is delay in lodging FIR as the incident hastaken place at 6.30 pm and the FIR is registered at 11.45 pm.Record indicates that on receipt of information about murderfrom police patil, PW6 has taken station diary entry andproceeded to the spot. He met PW4 and police patil there. Thenhe conducted inquest panchnama on the spot. Time of inquestpanchnama is between 20.15 hrs to 21.00 hrs and thereafter FIRis registered at 11.45 pm. There is no inordinate delay as such inlodging the FIR.36.In Nitya Nand vs. State of U.P. & Another10, the ApexCourt has considered the scope of Section 149 of IPC. In thepresent case prosecution has failed to point out any evidenceconnecting the acquitted accused to the present crime.Therefore, we find no merit in the application filed by the Stateseeking leave to file appeal challenging the acquittal of AccusedNo. 2 to 5. The same is therefore dismissed. 10Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2014Bhagyawant Punde {29} APEAL-683-201837.The Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidenceand has rightly convicted the accused. In the light of foregoingreasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and appealstands dismissed.(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)Bhagyawant Punde
Arguments
{2} APEAL-683-20183.Uttam s/o Maroti SuryawanshiAge: 39 years, Occupation: Agriculture,R/o Halki, taluka Shirur AnantpalDistrict Latur.4.Sunil s/o Taterao SuryawanshiAge: 25 years, Occupation: Agriculture,R/o Halki, taluka Shirur AnantpalDistrict Latur.5.Rahul @ Babasaheb s/o Maroti SuryawanshiAge: 29 years, Occupation: Agriculture,R/o Halki, taluka Shirur AnantpalDistrict Latur....RESPONDENTS[Orig. Accused]Mrs. Uma S. Bhosale, APP for applicant-StateMs. Poonam V. Bodke Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 09th JULY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON: 28th JULY, 2025JUDGMENT : [PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]1.This appeal is directed against the judgment andorder of conviction of appellant under Section 302 of IndianPenal Code and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him bylearned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No.04 of 2016.2.It is the prosecution case that, Madhav GovindWaghe (PW4) lodged report with Shirur Anantpal Police StationBhagyawant Punde {3} APEAL-683-2018on 14.10.2015 alleging that he along with his family resides atvillage Wanjarkheda. His elder brother Rambhau Waghe(deceased) was residing at Hyderabad since last 15 years. On14.10.2025 his brother had been to his native place and hewanted to proceed to Tuljapur. Earlier his brother had purchased1 Acre 1½ guntha land at Wanjerkheda. The dispute about saidland was going on with the family members of accused GovindTaterao Suryawanshi. A civil suit resulted in favour of his brother,therefore, accused Govind and his family members were havinggrudge against them. Govind and his brothers were threateningto kill them saying that though the result of the Court has gonein your favour, they will determine their fate. Though, PW4 andhis family members tried to give them understanding, it was ofno use.On 14.10.2015 at about 2.00 O’clock in the noon,Rambhau (deceased) reached to his field from Hyderabad andstayed there up to 5.00 pm. Later on they decided to bringmutton from village Halki. Therefore, deceased, PW3- SantoshSurwase and informant have gone triple seat on a motorbike tovillage Halki to bring mutton. After taking mutton they startedback towards their village at about 6.30 pm. PW3 Santosh wasriding the bike. PW4 was sitting in the middle and deceased wasBhagyawant Punde {4} APEAL-683-2018sitting behind him. When they reached at a distance of about 1km from village Halki, near a bridge, they came across accusedGovind, Maroti, Sunil, Uttam and one unknown person. Accusedasked them to stop their motorbike. Upon stopping of themotorbike, Accused No. 1- Govind came near them and gave ablow of axe on back side of the head of deceased, second blowwas dealt on the forehead. Other accused assaulted deceasedwith kicks and fist blows. Accused Govind was exhorting thatRamya should not go live and after Ramya, catch hold of theinformant. Therefore, PW3 and PW4 ran away from the spot. Hetherefore stated that all the accused have committed murder ofdeceased Rambhau on account of land dispute. 3.The information that one person has been murderedon Halki to Mushirabad road was received to the police stationthrough Police Patil of village Halki. PW6- Ashok Anantare tookentry in the station diary and visited the spot along with hisstaff. On reaching their he found that dead body of Rambhauwas lying on road facing down. He also noticed Police Patil andPW4 on the spot. Dead body was inspected in the lights oflantern, torch and vehicles. Inquest panchnama was conductedon the spot. Dead body was then sent for post mortem.Bhagyawant Punde {5} APEAL-683-2018Informant-PW4 was then taken to police station and his reportwas recorded at Exhibit-83. Crime No. 83 of 2015 was registeredand investigation was handed over to PW6. During theinvestigation, spot panchnama was conducted. Accused werearrested. Their clothes were seized under panchnamas. On thebasis of memorandum statement of accused Govind (Exhibit-64),alleged murder weapon axe used in the crime was recoveredvide panchnama (Exhibit-65). On completion of investigationcharge sheet was filed.Five accused persons were charged under Sections302, 307, 341 read with 149 of IPC and Section 37(1) (3) ofBombay Police Act. Accused denied the charge. Prosecutionexamined 7 witnesses in support of the charge. On appreciationof evidence Trial Court convicted the appellant as aforesaid andacquitted Accused No. 2 to 5.4.By filing Application No. 232 of 2018 State hassought leave to file appeal challenging the acquittal of AccusedNo. 2 to 5. By filing Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2018, appellanthas challenged his conviction.5.Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learnedAPP for State.Bhagyawant Punde {6} APEAL-683-20186.PW3 and PW4 are the eye witnesses in the presentcase.PW3 Santosh Surwase has not supported theprosecution and was declared hostile. He deposed that he knowscomplainant Madhav Waghe and Rambhau Waghe. Rambhau hadagricultural land at village Wanjarkheda. He did not knowwhether there is any dispute of Rambhau Waghe with anyoneregarding said land. Rambhau is not alive. He was residing atHyderabad. On 10.04.2015 he had been to Wanjarkheda fromHyderabad for going to Tuljapur. His field and Rambhau’s fieldwere adjacent to each other, so he met him on that day in thefield. Till 5.00 pm he and Rambhau were present in their fields.At about 5.45 to 6.00 pm they both went to bring mutton. Atabout 6.30 pm while returning to the field with mutton on themotorcycle, 5 to 6 unknown persons stopped them by signal withtheir hand for robbery. It did not happen that he, Rambhau andMadhav had gone to bring mutton and at that time Accused No.1 Govind stopped them by signaling with his hand and otheraccused were with him. Then Govind gave blow of axe over thehead of deceased Rambhau. It did not happen that Govind alsogave blow on his leg with iron bar.Learned APP was permitted to cross examine thisBhagyawant Punde {7} APEAL-683-2018witness. In the cross examination, he deposed that he knowsAccused No. 1 to 4 present before the Court. They are hisadjacent land owners, but he is not frequently sitting with them.Even after the death of Rambhau he is on talking terms withaccused. He denied that he along with Rambhau and Madhavwent to village Halki for bringing mutton and they were returninghome at 6.30 pm. At that time Accused No. 1 and 2 stoppedthem by giving signals with their hands. At that time, he wasdriving motorcycle, Madhav was sitting in between and deceasedRambhau was sitting behind. He denied that Govind gave blow ofaxe on the head of Rambhau and Govind gave him a blow withiron rod and therefore they all fell down. He admitted that theyran away from the said spot. He again stated that he ran awayfrom the said spot. He denied that due to the injuries sustainedby him he had been to Garad Hospital, Latur for treatment. Hedenied that he made statements in portion mark A, B and Cbefore police. He also denied the statement portion mark A wasmade by him in his supplementary statement. He admitted thatthe statement was recorded earlier before the Court. Statementdated 22.12.2015 (under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) was shown andread over to him. He admitted that it is the same statement andit bears his signature and its contents are true and correct. ThisBhagyawant Punde {8} APEAL-683-2018statement is mark Exhibit-77. He denied that due to fear ofaccused and as there is no powerful male member in the familyof victim therefore he is deposing false about the incident.7.In the cross examination by accused, he admittedthat his statement was recorded before the Judicial Magistrateafter 02 months and 8 days of the incident and he was forciblybrought to the Court by the police at that time. Police threatenedhim to tell such facts before the Court otherwise they would joinhim as accused and due to that fear he stated before theMagistrate.8.Informant Madhav Govind Waghe (PW4) is thebrother of deceased Rambhau. He testified that he has onebrother namely Rambhau, he possessed 1 Acre 1 Ghunta land.He is no more. He was doing bakery business at Hyderabad. On14.10.2015 he came from Hyderabad to Wanjarkheda in order togo to Tuljapur. Santosh Uttam Patil has known to him, he isfriend of his brother. He came to Wanjarkheda at about 2.00 pm.He was with him along with Santosh at the field till 5.00 O’clockin the evening. Thereafter they went to bring mutton on themotorbike at Halki. At the time of returning from mutton shopSantosh was rider of the motorbike, his brother (deceased) wasBhagyawant Punde {9} APEAL-683-2018pillion rider and he was sitting in between them. At about 6.00 to6.30 pm they reached upto a bridge which was on the way toHalki to Mushirabad. One Sunil Suryawanshi, MarutiSuryawanshi, Govind Suryawanshi, and Uttam Suryawanshialong with one unknown person stopped their motorbike.Accused Govind dealt a blow to his brother over the back of hishead with the help of axe, his brother fell down. Again AccusedGovind dealt another blow over his forehead. Thereafter, rest ofthe accused started assaulting to his brother with fists and kickblows. Accused Govind was shouting that Ramya should not livealive and he should be killed. Accused were also saying that heshould be caught. Therefore, he along with Santosh ran away.Their village is at a distance of 3 km from the said spot. He metsome people from the village on the outskirt of their village, thenagain they reached to the spot. Police had reached on the spot.Police asked him as to the identity of his brother. He confirmedthe identity. Police had brought lantern (Batti) and drew scene ofoccurrence panchnama. Then he was taken to police station. Hewas asked how the incident has happened. He lodged reportExhibit-83.Again next morning he was called at 6.00 am to thepolice station. Two panchas were called. He showed the spot toBhagyawant Punde {10} APEAL-683-2018them. Blood stained soil was collected from the spot. Then hewent to village Halki for his work where he noted presence ofunknown person who was along with accused at the time ofassault. He inquired the name of that person and came to knowhis name is Babasaheb Maruti Suryawanshi. Then he went topolice station and gave them the name of 5th assailant.Accordingly his supplementary statement was recorded. Aftercouple of days he was called to identify Babasaheb Suryawanshi.His statement was recorded in the Court. There was land disputein between Govind and his brother. The Court ruled in theirfavour, therefore accused were holding grudge against them.They used to say that we will deal with you properly. Heidentified clothes of deceased. He also identified the weapon axeused in the crime. His mother had lodged number of complaintsalleging that accused had given threats of life. 9.In the cross examination, he admitted that on05.10.2017 he had received court summons. On that date heappeared before the Court to sought adjournment as he was notprepared to testify. He did not remember whether after that dayfor 14 to 15 days, he did not attend the Court. He admitted thaton 2 to 4 occasions bailable warrant was issued against him andBhagyawant Punde {11} APEAL-683-2018his bond was also taken in the Court for further appearance. Hedid not know whether non bailable warrant was issued againsthim. He denied that since he was not eye witness he wasseeking multiple adjournments to get prepared for makingstatements before the Court. He further stated that civil suit wasin respect of partition of Suryawanshi family, it was a dispute inbetween step brothers, mother and father. Out of that subjudiceproperty he had purchased 1 Acre land from Maruti Suryawanshi.He did not know whether Accused No. 1 and his father wereparty to that suit or not. He denied that the civil suit was notagainst Accused No. 1. He did not sustain any injury in theincident. His clothes were also not stained with blood. He did notnotice as to whether motorcycle was present over the spot. Hedid not notice whether mutton carried by them was lying overthe spot in the night and in the morning as well. He denied asuggestion that he is deposing false about assault to his brotherand the assailants and he lodged false complaint owing to civildispute. He denied that accused are involved in the said crimeout of enmity, though they have no concern with present crime.10.By examining Dr. Balaji Devanagare (PW5),prosecution has proved homicidal death of deceased Rambhau.Bhagyawant Punde {12} APEAL-683-2018Dead body of Rambhau was forwarded to him on 15.10.2025 forpost mortem. He noticed 8 chop injuries over the head i.e.(i)Just above right eyebrows cut lacerated wound 5x 3 x 0.5 cm deep penitentiary almost to the brain.(ii)Cut lacerated wound on the right ear 4 x 1 x 0.5cm runs obliquely. (iii)Cut lacerated wound 4x1x0.5 cm aboveforehead.(iv)Cut lacerated wound on upper surface of head 5x 0.5x 0.5 cm almost cutting the bone and exposingthe brain matter.(v)CLW 4x1x 0.5 cm L-ve left ear.(vi)CLW occipital area horizontally 5x1x0.5 cm(upper)(vii)CLW occipital a/w middle area 4.4x1x0.5 cmhorizontally.(viii)CLW occipital lower area 5x1x0.5 cm horizontallyalmost exposing the brain. The injuries were antemortem cut lacerated wounds.He opined that death was due to multiple chop wounds over thehead with fracture of skull with injuries to brain. Provisionalinjury certificate (Exhibit-96) was issued by him and postmortem notes (Exhibit-97) was proved by him. 11.In the cross examination, he deposed that suchinjuries are possible by sickle. All the injuries were on theBhagyawant Punde {13} APEAL-683-2018forehead and head. There were no injuries on the other parts ofthe body. Several assaults are required for all the injuriessustained by the deceased. The deceased might have taken mealearlier to 4 to 6 hours of death.The defence has not seriously disputed the homicidaldeath of the deceased. The prosecution has therefore proved thehomicidal death of the deceased. 12.Anant Kulkarni (PW1) is the panch to spotpanchnama (Exhibit-62). The spot was shown by PW4. He is alsopanch to memorandum statement of appellant (Exhibit-64)agreeing to produce axe which was kept by him under the tin.After recording the memorandum statement of the appellant, heled them to village Halki and took them near one house. He tookout axe and iron rod from the roof of fowl house. The same wasseized vide panchnama (Exhibit-65).13.In the cross examination he has admitted thataccused was handcuffed at the time when police asked him bywhich weapon he had beaten the victim. He admitted that spotof incident is a public road and it is full of traffic.14.Waman Surwase (PW2) is panch to the panchnamaBhagyawant Punde {14} APEAL-683-2018of seizure of clothes of deceased (Exhibit-71).15.Police Inspector Ashok Anantre (PW6) was attachedto Shirur Anantpal police station at the relevant time. On14.10.2015 while he was on duty, police patil of Halki informedon telephone that one person is murdered on Halki Mushirabadroad. Accordingly, he took entry in the station diary and visitedthe spot along with staff. On reaching over the spot he foundthat dead body of Rambhau Waghe was lying there facingdownward. Brother of deceased (PW4) and police patil were alsopresent there. He therefore conducted inquest panchnama(Exhibit-100) on the spot and handed over the dead body forpostmortem. Brother of deceased (PW4) was taken to the policestation and his statement was recorded. Accordingly, Crime No.83 of 2025 was registered for offence under Section 302, 307,143, 341, 323 of the IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. Hedeposed that clothes of the accused were seized underpanchnama by searching their house vide Exhibits-58 to 61. On16.10.2015 accused Govind agreed to recover axe and iron rodused in the crime. His memorandum statement (Exhibit-64) wasrecorded and axe and iron rod were seized vide panchnamaExhibit-65. He got the map of scene of offence (Exhibit-104)Bhagyawant Punde {15} APEAL-683-2018prepared. He forwarded muddemal property to CA through PoliceConstable Gaware along with covering letters Exhibits-105 and106.He deposed that statement of PW3 was recorded asper his say and portion mark A,B, and C in his statement andportion mark A of supplementary statement were recorded asper his say. They were mark Exhibits-108, 109 respectively. Heidentified seized property before the Court. 16.In the cross examination he admitted that Govindwas not party in the civil dispute. The copy of the judgment incivil dispute is at Exhibit-110. The name of accused Govind alsodoes not reflect in the 7/12 extract (Exhibit-111). Arrestpanchnamas were confronted to him and were marked Exhibits-112 to 115. He stated that clothes of informant-PW4 andSantosh-PW3 were not seized. He stated that blow of axe wasgiven to the deceased when he was seated on the motorbike inthe middle of informant and Santosh. PW3 was the rider. Theaccused have assaulted all the three who were on the bike.Medical certificate of complainant and Santosh were obtained.Santosh PW3 was assaulted with iron rod. He denied to go formedical. No test identification parade was taken.Bhagyawant Punde {16} APEAL-683-201817.Rajkumar Gulbhele (PW7) was attached to theoutpost Nitur at the relevant time. On 06.09.2014 he was onduty. PSO Shinde was working at Shirur-Anantpal Police Station.He was also knowing ASI Kamble. He could identify theirsignatures. Deceased had given application to Shirur-AnantpalPolice Station about dispute of the land as against Maroti, Uttamand Govind Suryawanshi. The said application was given to himfor inquiry. Two to three such applications were filed. He calledboth the parties and chapter case was filed against them. Heproved the Entry No. 225 of 2014. The extract of the same is atExhibit-117. Copy of preventive measures taken under Section107 Cr.P.C. is at Exhibit-118.18.In the cross examination, he stated that preventiveaction was taken on the applications given by Phulabai.It is mentioned in Exhibit-118 that applicant-Phulabai (mother of the deceased) gave an application thatMaruti Suryawanshi, Uttam Suryawanshi and GovindSuryawanshi gave threats on account of dispute in respect ofagricultural land. They claimed that they had taken loan from thedeceased and towards security, the land was given to him.Though the loan was repaid, he was not returning the land.Bhagyawant Punde {17} APEAL-683-2018Hence, apprehension of serious crime being committed onaccount of said dispute is expressed. Therefore, bond underSection 116(3) is obtained from the parties and chapter caseunder Section 107 is initiated. 19.On careful scrutiny of prosecution evidence we findthat evidence of PW4-informant is truthful and reliable. He beingbrother of the deceased, his presence on the spot at the time ofincident is natural. He has vividly described the manner in whichaccused assaulted the deceased with axe. Medical evidencecorroborates his version. Though he has stated that in hispresence two blows of axe were given by accused on the head ofthe deceased, in the medical evidence it has come that therewere eight chop wounds on the person of the deceased. Butmerely because he has not stated about remaining six chopwounds is not sufficient to raise doubt about his version which isotherwise found reliable. He has stated that after hearingexhortation of the accused to catch him, he and PW3 ran awayfrom the spot. It appears that after he left the spot remaininginjuries were inflicted on the deceased. His evidence could not beshattered in the cross examination.Bhagyawant Punde {18} APEAL-683-201820.His evidence is assailed on the ground that he beingbrother of the deceased is interested witness and therefore hisevidence should be disbelieved, particularly in the light ofevidence of PW3.21.It is by now well settled that a “close relative cannotbe characterised as an “interested” witness. He is a “natural”witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinised carefully. Ifon such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable,inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can bebased on the “sole” testimony of such witness. Close relationshipof witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject hisevidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased wouldnormally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falselyimplicate an innocent one.” [See Namdeo Vs. State ofMaharashtra1]22.In Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State ofMaharashtra2 it is held that “even where a case hangs on theevidence of a single eyewitness it may be enough to sustain theconviction given the sterling testimony of a competent, honestman although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration.”1(2007) 14 SCC 1502(1973) 2 SCC 793Bhagyawant Punde {19} APEAL-683-201823.Merely because PW4 has not sustained any injuryand he has not tried to save the deceased, his presence on thespot cannot be doubted on these grounds. “Human behaviourdepends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case.How a person would react and behave in a particular situationcan never be predicted. Every person who witnesses a seriouscrime reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, becomespeechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hystericand start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run awayto keep themselves as far as removed from the spot as possible.Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to theextent of counter-attacking the assailants. Some may remaintightlipped overawed either on account of the antecedents of theassailant or threats given by him. Each one reacts in his specialway even in similar circumstances, leave alone, the varyingnature depending upon variety of circumstances. There is no setrule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness onthe ground that he did not react in any particular manner is toappreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginativeway.” (Vide Rana Pratap and Others V/s State of Haryana3).31983 (3) SCC 327Bhagyawant Punde {20} APEAL-683-201824.The next argument of the accused that since PW3has not supported the prosecution case his evidence is liable tobe discarded from the consideration.In the cross examination of PW3 conducted bylearned APP his previous statements were confronted to him.Portion Mark A, B and C from his police statement dated16.10.2015 are at Exhibit-108 collectively. They are as follows:Portion Mark ‘A’ÞR;kps ‘ksrkr lka;dkGh ikp oktsi;Zar Fkkacyks R;kaurj R;kaP;keksVkjlk;dyus eh] jkeHkkm ok?ks] egknso ok?ks vls fr?kst.k gYdh ;sFksvkyks o rsFkhy ,dk eqLyheP;k ekulkdMwu ,d fdyks eV.k ?ksowueksVkjlk;dyus ijr okatj[ksMk xkokdMs vankts la/;kdkGh 6-30 ok-lqekjkl tkr vlrkauk gYdh xkokiklwu okatj[ksMk tkukjs jksMoj vankts1@2 km oj gYdh ;sFkhy xksfoan rkrsjko lq;Zoa’kh ;kus vkeP;keksVkjlk;dyk gkr dsyk R;keqGs eh eksVkjlk;dypk osx deh dsyk-R;kosGh rks ekÖ;k toG ;sowu eksVkjlk;dyyk /k:u o R;kps gkrkrhydqÚgkMhus ikBhekxs clysY;k jkeHkkm ok?ksP;k Mksdhr dqÚgkMhus tksjkrokj dsyk-ßPortion Mark ‘B’ÞR;kps nqlÚ;k gkrkrhy lGbZus ¼jkWMus½ ek>s ik;koj tksjkr ek:u ek>kMkok ik; xaHkhj t[keh dsyk- rso<;kr vkEgh fr?ksgh [kkyh tehuhojiMyks- R;kosGh gYdh ;sFkhy ek:rh lq;Zoa’kh] lquhy lq;Zoa’kh] mRrelq;Zoa’kh gs i.k jksMP;k cktwu Fkkacysys rsFks vkys o R;kauhi.k jkeHkkmok?ksyk ykFkk cqDd;kauh ekjgk.k dj.;kl lq:okr dsyh o gs loZ t.kjkE;k ftoar ukgh jkfgyk ikfgts vls Eg.kr gksrs o R;kaP;k cktwu ,dvuksG[kh ble i.k Fkkacysyk gksrk- jkeHkkmP;k Mksdhr o dikGkojdqÚgkMhpk tcj ekj ykxyk vlY;kus rks jksMojp jDrcackG gksowu iMwuBhagyawant Punde