Shri R.B.Gaikwad v. R.M.Daga

Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.048articles found on the spot at the time of drawing spotpanchanama are also seized and the entire incriminatingarticles were forwarded to the Forensic ScienceLaboratory for analysis. After completion of theinvestigation, chargesheet was filed against all theaccused persons.6. Learned Judge of the trial court has framedcharge vide Exh.45. The accused persons pleaded notguilty and claimed to be tried.7. In support of the prosecution case, theprosecution has examined in all 27 witnesses, they are asfollows:PWNos.Names of WitnessesExh.Nos.1Shobha Pal, the informant and wife ofthe deceased 642Archana Pal, daughter of the deceased683Suresh Sonwane69.....9/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0494Anup Meshram, eyewitness715Shankar Shivankar, eyewitness726Ratan Samshere737Anand Tiwari, owner of the STDBooth748Dharamdas Chawla759Nandkishore Baghele7910Jaideep Bramha8011Mahavir Dongre8212Omprakash Chorware8613Fatehasing Chauhan, pancha on spotand inquest panchanamas and seizurememos10014Rajkumar Notani10515Santosh Sathawane, pancha on arrestpanchanamas10716Wasudeo Lalwani, eyewitness11917Baban Sahare, pancha on spotpanchanama as to identification offootwear of accused and seizurememo12018Manojkumar Raut, Medical Officer12519Hanifkha, PSI14120Rushi Harchandani, pancha14221Noorkhan, pancha15022Tikaram Kore, Police Constable15123Kaushik Gosavi153.....10/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.041024Dhanraj Malik15925Laxman Lalwani16026Kundankumar Waghmare16327Ramakant Choube, Investigating Officer1678. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecutionmainly placed reliance on report Exh.65, FIR Exh.66,memorandum statement of accused Rajesh Exh.87,discovery panchanama Exh.88, memorandum Exh.89,discovery panchanama Exh.90, memorandum statementof accused Uttam Exh.91, discovery panchanama Exh.92,memorandum statement of accused Ranya @ RajendraMeshram Exh.93, discovery panchanama Exh.94,memorandum statement of Shrawandas Exh.95, discoverypanchanama Exh.96, seizure memo Exhs.97 and 98, spotpanchanama Exh.156, inquest panchanamas Exh.102 and106, seizure memos Exhs.103, 103A, 125, seizure memo.....11/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0411Exh.104, 104A, 154, arrest panchanamas of the accusedpersons Exhs.108 to 116, panchanama as to identificationof footwears of accused Exhs.121 to 123, seizure memoExh.124, requisition to medical officer Exh.126,postmortem report Exh.126, requisition to query Exh.128,opinion of medical officer Exh.129, requisition to medicalofficer Exh.132, opinion of medical officer Exh.133,requisition to medical officer Exh.134, opinion Exh.134A,requisition to medical officer Exh.135 and opinionExh.15-A, requisition to medical officer Exh.136 andopinion Exh.136-A, opinion Exh.137-A, requisition tomedical officer Exh.138 and opinion Exh.138-A,requisition to medical officer Exh.139 and opinionExh.139A, requisition to medical officer Exh.140 andopinion Exh.140A, requisition to medical officer Exhs.143to 144, medical certificate of accused Sunil Exh.145,requisition to Tahsildar Exh.148, dog squad reports.....12/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0412Exhs.151 to 152, spot panchanamas Exhs.156, 161,compliance report 163, seizure memos Exhs.168 to 174,memorandum statement of accused Umesh Exh.175, andCA Report Exh.189.9. After hearing both the sides and appreciatingthe evidence adduced on record, learned Judge of thetrial court acquitted accused No.1 Pankaj of offence underSection 120-B and 302 of the IPC; accused No.8 Ranyaand accused No.9 Shrawandas of offences under Sections120-B, 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the IPC. Whereas,accused No.2 Rajesh, accused No.3 Uttam, accused No.4Sunil, accused No.5 Umesh, accused No.6 Kalu, andaccused No.7 Kalu @ Prabhu were held guilty andconvicted as the aforesaid.10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same,accused No.2 Rajesh, accused No.3 Uttam, accused No.4.....13/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0413Sunil have preferred Criminal Appeal No.715/2004 andaccused No.5 Umesh, accused No.6 Kalu, and accusedNo.7 Kalu @ Prabhu have preferred Criminal AppealNo.747/2004.11. Learned counsel Shri R.B.Gaikwad appearingin Criminal Appeal No.715/2004 submitted that theentire case is based on the evidence of sole eyewitnessPW5 Shankar Shivankar whose evidence is vague innature, as far as the assault by the present accused isconcerned. His evidence is also not inspiring confidenceas he has not disclosed the names of the assailantsimmediately. His statement is also recorded belatedlythough he was present at the spot itself and he has notapproached the police station immediately after theincident. His evidence further shows that there wasprevious enmity between him and the accused personsand, therefore, he is interested witness. .....14/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0414 He further submitted that besides thisevidence, admittedly, PW1 Shobha Pal, the informant andwife of the deceased, is not eyewitness of the incidentand, therefore, her evidence is not helpful to theprosecution. As far as previous enmity is concerned, herevidence is not trustworthy and liable to be thrown out.As far as various panchanamas and recovery of articles atthe instance of the accused persons are concerned,pancha witness turned hostile and not supported theprosecution case. He further submitted other two eyewitnessesnamely PW4 Anup Meshram and PW16 Wasudev Lalwanihave also not supported the prosecution case. Learned Judge of the trial court has convictedthe accused persons merely on the basis of evidence of the.....15/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0415sole eyewitnesses and, therefore, the evidence is not at alltrustworthy and is not sufficient to prove the guilt of theaccused persons. In view of that, he submitted that theappeal deserves to be allowed. In support of his contentions, he placedreliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in thecase of Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala vs. State of Gujarat,reported in 2023 STPL 3403 SC. 12. Learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga appearing inCriminal Appeal No.747/2004 reiterated the similarsubmissions and submitted that conviction can be basedon the sole eyewitness only when the evidence is inspiringconfidence. These witnesses have not disclosed name ofassailants immediately though he has witnessed theincident. The accused persons are not known to them.There is no evidence as to forming of unlawful assembly......16/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0416No specific role is attributed to the accused persons. Theiridentification before the court is also general in nature.Thus, neither the direct evidence nor the circumstantialevidence shows involvement of the accused persons in thealleged incident. In view of that, the appeal deserves tobe allowed. In support of his contentions, he placedreliance on following decisions:1. Baddi Venkata Narasayya and ors vs. State ofA.P., reported in (1998)2 SCC 329;2. Nagesar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reportedin (2014)6 SCC 672, and 3. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and ors vs.State of Karnataka, reported in (2024)8 SCC149.13. Per contra, learned Additional PublicProsecutor Mrs.Sneha Dhote for the State submitted that.....17/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0417PW5 Shankar Shivankar; PW4 Anup Meshram, and PW16Wasudev Lalwani are eyewitnesses. However,unfortunately, PW4 Anup Meshram, and PW16 WasudevLalwani have not supported the prosecution case. Merelybecause they have not supported the prosecution case, theprosecution case has not weakened. The evidence ofPW5 Shankar Shivankar is corroborated by circumstantialevidence like weapons and recovery at the instance of theaccused persons. There is previous enmity between thedeceased and the accused persons. There was motive forthe accused persons to commit murder of the deceased.The blood stained clothes of the accused were seized attheir instance and CA Analysis shows that Blood Group“AB” which is of the deceased was found on the clothes ofthe accused persons. Therefore, it is not the solewitnesses but other circumstantial evidence sufficientlyshows involvement of the accused and learned Judge of.....18/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0418the trial court has rightly considered the same andconvicted the accused persons. In view of that, theappeals being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed. 14. To prove the death of the deceased is homicidalone, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence ofPW18 Dr.Manojkumar Raut, who has conducted thepostmortem on the death body of the deceased. As perhis evidence, he has conducted the postmortem on thedead body of the deceased on the request made byinvestigating officer by police requisition Exh.126. Onexamining him, he found in all 16 external injuries andinternal injuries on the person of the deceased. Theinjuries found on the person of the deceased are asfollows:1. incised wound over chin of size 10x0.5 cm;2. incised wound over mandible under lowerteeth size 12x3x.5.4 cm;.....19/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.04193. incised wound over lower lib size 3.5x0.5cm;4. incised wound over left cheek size 6x2x2cm;5. incised wound over right maxilla size12x2.5x2 cm;6. incised wound over right eyebrow of size4x1x1 cm;7. incised wound above right pinna of size7x1.5x0.5 cm;8. incised wound over right occipital region ofsize 7x1x1 cm;9. incised wound over right post auricularregion of size 4x0.5x1 cm;10. incised wound over left occipital parietalregion of size 12x3x3.5 cm;11. transverse incised wound over occipitalregion 12x2x1 cm;.....20/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.042012. incised oblique wound over right flank5x1x3 cm;13. stab wound just below right asis of size3x2x4 cm;14. incised wound over right hand ulnar aspectof size 7x1x1 cm;15. incised wound over right M.P. joint ulnaraspect 6x2x1 cm,16. incised wound over right shoulder 2x1x1cm. On internal examination, he found intracranealhaematoma under the head of injuries under the scalp.The deceased has also sustained the fracture of temporoparieto occipital region. The injuries are also found onleft scapulla 4x1 cm x 0.5 cm, base of right neck 5x1x5cm, oblique incised wound below left scapulla 5x1x0.5cm, oblique incised wound over right posterior axillaryborder 4x1x0.5 cm, incised wound over right sacrolliac.....21/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0421region 3x1x0.5x0.5 cm, incised wound over left posteriorsuperior iliac spine 4x2.5x0.5 cm, incised wound overright and left sacrum 2.5x1x0.5 cm each, and obliqueincised wound over right posterior superior iliac spine2.5x1x0.5 cm. All the injuries were antemortem in nature.He opined that the cause of death is due tohaemorrahagic shock due to multiple injuries.Accordingly, he prepared the postmortem report, which isat Exh.127. His further evidence shows that on 29.6.2002,four swords, two knives, one gupti, one dagger were sentto him and query was made under the police requisitionExh.128. He examined all the weapons and opined thatthe injuries mentioned in postmortem report are possibleby the said weapons. The said opinion is at Exh.129. On27.6.2002, one sword was sent vide requisition Exh.138.After examining the said weapon, he opined that the said.....22/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0422weapons can cause serious injuries which may lead todeath of human being. The opinion is at Exh.131. On29.6.2002, one sword under requisition Exh.132 wasreferred to him. On examination of the said sword, heopined that said weapon can cause grievous injuries likelife threatening. The opinion is at Exh.133. On27.6.2002, seven weapons were referred to him underrequisition Exhs.134 to 140 and he opined that theweapons can cause life threatening injuries. The saidopinions are at Exhs.134-A to 140-A. In all 9 weaponswere sent for seeking his opinion. He verified the saidweapons. He has identified the said weapons before thecourt also. His cross examination shows that all weaponswere hard and sharp. Injuries to deceased were causedby the hard and sharp weapons. He further admitted thatall requisitions Exhs.128 to 140 are silent that articles.....23/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0423sent to him were wrapped and sealed, but he voluntarilystated that weapons were wrapped and sealed. Hefurther admitted that his reports also nowhere disclosethat he received the weapons in a sealed condition. Hefurther admitted that all injuries mentioned in reportwere collectively sufficient to cause death. He furtheradmitted that all the injuries were not on the vital partand internal injuries sustained to scalp are mentioned incolumn No.19. He has not mentioned the correspondingsurface injuries. There were no internal injuries to heart,thorax and lungs. There were no injuries to externalgenital organs. He further admitted that except the brain,there was no damage to internal vital organ. Thedeceased might have taken meals between 2:00 am to8:00 am. He further stated that he was not asked toclarify as to which injury was caused by which weapon. .....24/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0424 Thus, on the basis of this cross examination, anattempt was to show that the injuries were not on thevital part of the body and the weapons were not in asealed condition.15. Besides the medical evidence, the prosecutionalso placed reliance on the evidence of pancha witnessesacted as panchas on inquest panchanamas. 16. PW14 Rajkumar Notani, acted as a pancha oninquest panchanama, deposed that the police preparedinquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased.There were several injuries on his body. The saidinquest panchanama is at Exh.106. As far as his cross examination is concerned,nothing incriminating is brought on record to show thatthere were no injuries on the person of the deceased......25/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.042517. PW23 Kaushik Gosavi, who has carried outthe part investigation, also deposed before the court thathe has drawn the inquest panchanama.18. Thus, As far as the evidence of PW14Rajkumar Notani, acted as a pancha on inquestpanchanama, and PW23 Kaushik Gosavi, who hascarried out the part investigation, is concerned, itdiscloses that there were various injuries on the personof the deceased. 19. The medical officer, though cross examinedand it is tried to bring on record some inconsistenciesthat he has not mentioned whether the weapons werereceived by him in a sealed condition or not, which heanswered that the weapons were received by him in asealed condition though it is not mentioned in the letter......26/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.042620. A medical witness who performs apostmortem examination is a witness of fact though healso gives an opinion on certain aspects of the case. Thisproposition of law has been stated by the Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of Smt. Nagindra BalaMitraand v. Sunil Chandra, reported in 1960 SCR (3) 1wherein it has been observed that, “the value of amedical witness is not merely a check upon thetestimony of eye witnesses; it is also independenttestimony because it may establish certain facts quiteapart from the other oral evidence. If a person is shot ata close range, the mark of tattooing found by themedical witness would draw that the range was small,quite apart from any other opinion of his. Similarly,fractures of bones, depth and size of the wounds wouldshow the nature of the weapon used. It is wrong to say.....27/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0427that it is only opinion evidence; it is often directevidence of the facts found upon the victim's person.”21. Thus, the testimony of the medical witness isvery important and it can safely be accepted. Theevidence adduced by the Medical Officer corroboratedby the inquest panchanama shows that the deceaseddied homicidal death. 22. The entire case of the prosecution is based onsole eyewitness i.e. PW5 Shankar Shivankar. It is not disputed that the alleged incidentoccurred on 15.6.2002 at about 7:30 am to 8:00 am.Though this incident is witnessed by PW4 Anup Meshram,examined vide Exh.71, and PW16 Wasudev Lalwani,examined vide Exh.119, they have not supported theprosecution case and left loyalty towards the prosecution......28/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0428 Therefore the evidence of PW5 ShankarShivankar is material, which discloses that on the day ofthe incident, at about 8:00 am, he was proceedingtowards market. He reached near Zulelal Temple andwitnessed all the accused present were present in thecourt. They were assaulting the deceased. These accusedassaulted him by means of knives, swords, daggers etc..After the assault, all the accused persons fled away fromthe spot to different lanes. While leaving the place, theytook their respective weapons and fled away. Thedeceased was lying in front of the Zulelal Temple and hewas dead. PW16 Wasudev Lalwani and other personswere present on the spot. After the incident, heproceeded towards his house. The police recorded hisstatement. The cross examination of this witness showsthat he has stated name of co-accused Panjaj while.....29/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0429recording the police statement. He has also stated thename of accused No.7 Ramya @ Rajendra Gupta.However, the witness clarified that he has not seenaccused No.1 Pankaj on the spot while rest of the accusedwere present. He specifically stated that all the accusedpersons fled away by different lanes after the incident. Hefurther admitted that the names of accused Pankaj,Rajendra, and Shrawandas are not mentioned in hisstatement. His further cross examination shows that acriminal case under Section 307 of the IPC is registeredagainst him on the basis of Pradip Dongre. One anothercase for causing hurt to Abdul Kadar is also pendingagainst him. A case of criminal intimidation is pendingagainst him on the basis of report lodged by accusedRanya @ Rajendra and external proceeding is alsoinitiated against him. He further stated that he had not.....30/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0430narrated the incident to anybody, till it was recorded bypolice. He was very well on the spot and the policerecorded his statement at the time of drawing spotpanchanama. He denied that he has kept mum, till hisstatement was recorded since he was unaware about theincident. He stated that neither he went to the police onhis own accord nor the police came to him on the date ofthe incident. He further denied that he was not knowingany of the accused by their names and he stated that hewas knowing accused Sunil and Kalu by their names andother accused persons by their faces. As to the disclosure, he has admitted that hehas not disclosed the names of the assailants to the wifeof the deceased. He stated that as they were approachingthe spot of the incident, he has not disclosed the saidnames to her as he has not narrated the incident to thefamily members of the deceased. .....31/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0431 An omission is also brought on record that hehas not stated before the police that he was knowing allthe accused persons prior to the incident, but voluntarilyhe has stated that he has simply stated that he knew co-accused and rest of the accused by their faces. He has further admitted that for the first timehe has stated before the court that he knew all theaccused persons prior to the incident. Thus, from the cross examination of thiswitness, an attempt was made to bring on record thatthough he is having an opportunity to disclose theincident to the police as well as to the family members ofthe deceased, he has not narrated the same to the policeand he has disclosed names of the assailants at belatedstage on the next date when his statement was recorded. .....32/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.043223. Besides the oral evidence of this soleeyewitness, the prosecution also placed reliance on theevidence of PW1 Shobha Pal, the informant and wife ofthe deceased, who testified that there was previousenmity between the deceased and co-accused Pankaj onaccount of contesting elections against them by her. As tothe incident, her evidence shows that on 15.6.2002, atabout 7:30 am, her husband left the house for municipaloffice. After some time, sweeper Suresh came andinformed her that somebody has killed the deceased and,therefore, she rushed to the spot and found her husbandlying in pool of blood. She expressed suspicion that asthere was a previous enmity between the deceased andaccused Pankaj, the deceased was killed. As to the enmity, her cross examination showsthat there were other lady candidates also who havecontested the elections against her. .....33/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0433 As to the incident, her cross examination showsthat between 10-15 minutes, after the deceased leavingthe house, Suresh informed her about the incident. Sheadmitted that in all five murder cases were registeredagainst the deceased and he was convicted in one ofthem. She further stated that no report was given tothe police expressing apprehension from the accused. The omission was brought on record that she hasstated to the police that she has seen “Gamcha,” footwearof the deceased and one another footwear of browncolour and other articles, however the deceased did notmentioned in the FIR. 24. The evidence of PW2 Archana Pal, daughter ofthe deceased, is only to the extent that seven days priorto the incident, co-accused Pankaj telephoned on the.....34/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0434mobile phone of her father. She picked up the call andgave to her mother. 25. PW1 Shobha Pal, identified footwear of thedeceased Article-8. She has also identified Article-6cover of the sword, Article-7 handle of the sword,Article-10 cloth piece, Articles-13 and 14 clothes of thedeceased, and Articles-15 and 16 the clothes of thedeceased. 26. Though PW6 Ratan Samshere is examined bythe prosecution to establish the fact of memorandumstatement of the accused and discovery at their hands,the said witness has not supported the prosecution case.PW10 Jaideep Bramha, STD Booth owner, and PW11Mahavir Dongre, auto-rickshaw driver, have notsupported the prosecution case......35/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.043527. The evidence of PW7 Anand Tiwari and PW8Dharamdas Chawla, is formal in nature. They areowners of the STD Booth.28. The evidence of PW9 Nandkishore Baghele isonly to the extent that he was initially working with hisuncle who was medical practitioner and he learnt howto dress the wound and accordingly, some persons cameto him prior to two years of his depositions and he hasdressed their wounds. It was simple abrasion.29. To prove the discovery at the hands of theaccused persons, the prosecution has examined PW12Omprakash Chorware, who deposed that on 20.6.2002he was called at the police station along with anotherpancha Deepak Patil. Accused No.2 Rajesh, accused No.3Uttam, accused No.7 Kalu Shikha, and accused No.8Ranya were present in the police station. These accused.....36/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0436persons made statements before them that they wouldshow the place where they kept the weapons used in theassault. Their statements were recorded independentlyand reduced into writing. After recording the statements,accused Rajesh led them towards Lal Pahadi. At oneplace, he asked to stop the vehicle and, thereafter, he tookthem and took out one sword and one ditch. The swordand knife were sealed on the spot by the police. Article-37 is the same knife and Article-38 is the sword. Theseweapons were recovered at the instance of accusedRajesh. The admissible portion is at Exh.87. Another accused Kalu Shikha also led them andproduced one Gupti kept under stone. He has identifiedthat article. Accordingly, panchanama was drawn. Hismemorandum statement is at Exh.89 and panchanama isat Exh.90. .....37/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0437 Similarly, accused Uttam took out dagger fromone pit which was near one tree, which was seized. Hismemorandum statement is at Exh.91 and recoverypanchanama is at Exh.92. Accused Ranya Meshram also took them to hishouse and took one knife concealed below the heap ofbricks which was lying in front of his house. Accordingly,memorandum statement Exh.93 and panchanama atExh.94 were recorded. After 2-3 days, again they were called and intheir presence, accused Shrawandas made amemorandum statement and led them, as per thememorandum statement, towards his house and producedone sword. Accordingly, panchanama was drawn Exh.96.In his presence, blood samples of the accused were alsoseized by drawing panchanama Exh.98. His cross.....38/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0438examination shows that one criminal case is pendingagainst him. It further shows that he knows languageMarathi and he can read and write Marathi. Hespecifically stated that the work of disclosure statementstarted after his arrival in the police station. The policewere interrogating the accused and he did not talk withthe accused. He further admitted that the way leading to LalPahadi is narrow, the vehicle carrying the accused wasahead through the way, and minimum distance betweenthe two vehicles was 15-20 feet. The first place was 30 to40 paces away from the vehicle. He further admittedthat disclosure statement and recovery memorandum ofaccused Rajesh and time of seizuring shown between11:35 to 12:35 is correct. He further admitted that hewas shown disclosure statement of accused Uttam, time ofrecording statement is shown as 12:30 pm at the police.....39/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0439station. He stated that according to him, they all were atLal Pahadi at 12:30 pm till 2:00 pm. He further clarifiedthat he is unable to say the time when they returned inthe police station. However, he specifically denied that heput his signatures on all the documents on the say of thepolice. Thus, an attempt was made by the defence toshow that all the memorandum statements were preparedat the police station and no such discovery was made atthe instance of the accused persons. 30. As to the recovery, the evidence ofInvestigating Officer PW27 Ramakant Choube is alsorelevant, which shows that on 20.6.2002, accused Rajesh,accused Umesh, and accused Kalu made a memorandumstatement and at their instance, the weapons were seizedfrom various places which were in concealed conditions......40/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0440As per his evidence, at the instance of accused Umesh onesword was recovered, at the instance of accused Kaluknife was recovered, at the instance of accused Sunilsword was recovered, and at the instance of Rajesh andUttam weapons sword and knife were recovered. The cross examination of these witnesses, asfar as the recovery panchanama is concerned, exceptdenial, nothing is brought on record. 31. Coming to the evidence of PW13 FatehasingChauhan, acted as pancha on spot and inquestpanchanamas, the said witness has not supported theprosecution case. Similarly, PW15 Santosh Sathawane,acted as pancha on arrest panchanamas of the accusedpersons, has also not supported the prosecution case.32. The evidence of PW17 Baban Sahare, acted aspancha on spot panchanama as to identification of.....41/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0441footwear of accused and seizure memo, shows thataccused Sunil, Umesh and Kalu were called to identifytheir footwears lying at the spot of the incident andseized from the spot of the incident. They identifiedtheir footwears. Accordingly, panchanama was drawn.The panchanama of seizure of footwear of accused Sunilis at Exh.121, panchanama as to footwear of accusedUmesh is at Exh.122, and panchanama as to footwear ofaccused Kalu @ Prabhu is at Exh.123. In his presence,the clothes of the deceased were also seized. His crossexamination shows that on that day, only three accusedpersons were called and he came to know their namesfrom the police. 33. The evidence of PSI PW19 Hanifkha, who hasregistered the crime on basis of the report lodged byPW1 Shobha Pal, the wife of the deceased, is only to thatextent. He admitted during the cross examination that.....42/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0442he registered the offence at 9:15 am. However, he hasnot aware whether any intimation was received to thepolice prior to lodging of the report. 34. PW20 Rushi Harchandani, acted as pancha,has not supported the prosecution case. PW21Noorkhan, acted as pancha, has also not supported theprosecution case. 35. The evidence of PW22 Tikaram Kore, who isPolice Constable, shows that footwears were found onthe spot of the incident and, therefore, the dog squadwas called. He was along with the said dog squad. Thesmell of footwears was given to the dog and, thereafter,that dog has carried them at various places. Accordingly,he prepared the report, which is at Exh.152. 36. The evidence of PW23 Kaushik Gosavi, whohas carried out the part investigation, shows that he has.....43/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0443drawn the spot panchanama and at the spot, one clothpiece was found, likewise pair of chappals and cover ofthe sword and one handle of the sword, which wereseized by him in presence of the panchas. He alsodisclosed that he saw the dead body of the deceased atabout 8:30 am. 37. PW24 Dhanraj Malik, who is the Sweeper, hasnot supported the prosecution case. Similarly, PW25Laxman Lalwani has also not supported the prosecutioncase. 38. PW26 Kundankumar Waghmare, is theInvestigating Officer. His evidence is to the extent thaton 16.6.2002, he received order from his superior toarrest the accused persons. Accordingly, he went toJabalpur and arrested accused Rajesh, Uttam, Sunil,.....44/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0444Umesh, Kalu @ Jarlya, and Karu Shikha, as per arrestpanchanamas. Though he is cross examined, nothingincriminating is brought on record.39. PW27 Ramakant Choube, the InvestigatingOfficer, narrated about the investigation carried out byhim. His cross examination shows that one DevendraPurohit gave intimation to the the police station aboutthe murder of the deceased. He further admitted thatGanesh Bhute gave information to Devendra about theincident and he has not recorded the statement ofGanesh Bhute. He has recorded the statement of PW5PW5 Shankar Shivankar on 16.6.2002 who also admittedthat he has stated before him that the police arrived at thespot immediately after the incident and he narrated theevents to the police. Portion Mark-A is recorded as per his.....45/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0445narration which is at Exh.202. He has explained that inseizure memo at one space is left blank inadvertently. Hespecifically stated that recovery from accused No.7 Kaluwas made after the recovery of accused Rajesh from LalPahadi. 40. It is vehemently submitted by learned counselappearing for respective accused persons that except theevidence of PW5 Shankar Shivankar, which is generaland vague in nature, no other evidence is on record inthe nature of direct evidence to show the involvement ofthe present accused persons in the alleged incident. It issubmitted that the evidence of PW5 Shankar Shivankar isnot cogent, trustworthy, and inspiring confidence asthough he was present at the spot, his statement was notrecorded immediately, but it recorded on 16.6.2002. Tillrecording his statement, he has not disclosed the namesof the assailants to any other persons. It is further.....46/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0446canvassed that he has not disclosed the incident to thewife of the deceased also though he was knowing thenames of the assailants. 41. Thus, the entire conduct of PW5 ShankarShivankar raises suspicion. Admittedly, there wasprevious enmity between the deceased and the accused aswell as between this witness and the accused also andthat can be motive for the informant to implicate him inthe alleged offence. It is submitted that he is aninterested witness and, therefore, his evidence is to bediscarded. It is vehemently submitted that though he haswitnessed the incident, his evidence is sufficient to showthat he has not attributed any specific act to any specificwitnesses. 42. Learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga, placedreliance on the decision in the name of Baddi Venkata.....47/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0447Narasayya and ors supra wherein it has been observedthat where a criminal court has to deal with evidencepertaining to the commission of an offence involving alarge number of offenders and a large number of victims,it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could besustained only if it is supported by two or three or morewitnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. He further placed reliance on the decision inthe case of Nagesar vs. State of Chhattisgarh suprawherein it is held that mere presence or association withother members alone does not per se be sufficient to holdeveryone of them criminally liable for the offencescommitted by the others unless there was sufficientevidence on record to show that one such also intended toor knew the likelihood of commission of such anoffending act......48/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0448 He further placed reliance on the decision inthe case of Shahid Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, reportedin (2016)4 SCC 96 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court hasconsidered delay in recording statement and held thatdelay in recording statement casting the serious doubtabout they being eyewitess to occurrence and theevidence of witnesses is unreliable.43. As far as the evidence of the sole witness isconcerned, it is well settled that there is no legalimpediment in accepting the evidence of the solewitnesses, if it is found truthful, cogent, and reliable.44. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of JagdishPrasad vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1251held that as a general rule, a court can and may act on thetestimony of a single witness provided he is whollyreliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a.....49/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0449person on the sole testimony of signle witness. That is thelogic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act 1872, but, wherethere are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insiston corroboration. It is for the courts to act upon thetestimony of witnesses. It is not the number, quantity, butthe quality that is material. The above position was also highlighted in thecase of Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi,MANU/SC/0815.45. In the light of the above principle, the evidenceof eyewitness PW5 Shankar Shivankar is to bescrutinized.46. PW5 Shankar Shivankar, is cross examined andhe admitted that when the incident occurred, all theaccused were present, but he has not narrated the role ofeach accused. He has also admitted that immediately has.....50/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0450not disclosed the names of the assailants to the wife of thedeceased. He also disclosed that other two eyewitness i.e.PW4 Anup Meshram and PW16 Wasudev Lalwani werealso present at the spot of the incident. Learned defence counsel has attacked thisevidence on the ground there was no natural conduct ofthe witnesses as far as disclosure is concerned. It issubmitted that as natural conduct of the present witness ,he ought to have disclosed the incident to the wife of thedeceased. For that purpose, the evidence of PW5Shankar Shivankar requires to be considered again.47. The cross examination of PW5 ShankarShivankar specifically shows that his relations with thedeceased and his family were cordial. He did not conveythe incident to the family members of the deceased,which he clarified that when he was proceeding towards.....51/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0451the house of the deceased, the family member approachedtowards the spot and, therefore, he has not narrated theincident to the family members even after witnessingapproaching them towards the spot. He further deposedthat he has specifically stated before the police that theaccused were armed with dagger and other weapons. 48. The another submission made by the defencecounsel is that the statements were recorded belatedly.Admittedly, the incident occurred on 15.6.2002 and thestatement was recorded immediately on the next day.49. Now, it is to be seen, whether there is othercorroboration to the evidence of PW5 Shankar Shivankar.To corroborate the version of PW5 Shankar Shivankar, theprosecution placed reliance on the evidence of panchawitness acted on memorandum statement of the accusedand recovery of the Articles at their instance. .....52/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.045250. The evidence of PW12 Omprakash Chorwarespecifically shows that in his presence and in thepresence of other panchas, accused Rajesh madememorandum statement which was reduced intowriting, statement of accused Kalu was also recordedand statements of accused Uttam, Ranya, andShrawandas were recorded and their instance, Articleslike swords, knives, and guptis were recovered. As far as statement of accused Rajesh isconcerned, recorded on 20.6.2002, at about 10:10 amand discovery panchanama as to the recovery of knivesand swords at the instance of accused Rajesh, was madeat 11:35 to 12:35. The statement of accused Kalu @Prabhu is concerned, it is recorded on 20.6.2002 atabout 10:15 am and discovery panchanama showing13:25 to 14:10 and at his instance gupti was recovered......53/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0453 The memorandum statement of accusedUttam was recorded 20.6.2002 at 12:30 and timing ofhis panchanama is 12:30 to 13:15. The memorandum statement of Ramya wasrecorded on 11:07 and his discovery panchanamashowing timing as 14:30 to 15:10. Whereas, memorandum statement of accusedShrawandas was recorded at 9:30 on 24.6.2002 andrecovery panchanama was carried out at 10:20 to 11:20. As far as the timing as to the memorandumstatement of accused Uttam is concerned, much stress isgiven by defence counsel that if panchas were alongwith accused Rajesh between 11:35 to 12:35, recordingof statement of accused Uttam in the police station atabout 12:30 is improbable and unacceptable......54/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0454 No explanation is sought during the crossexamination of the investigating officer as to the timingwhich is mentioned in the memorandum statement ofaccused Uttam. However, PW12 Omprakash Chorwarehas specifically stated that one by one the statements ofthe accused were recorded. He specifically denied thatall papers were signed in the police station at the sametime. He specifically stated that the work of disclosurestatements started after his arrival in the police station.The police were interrogating the accused and he didnot talk with the accused. His further cross examinationshows that it was the accused persons who were leadingthem and at their instance recovery was made. Hespecifically stated that it did not happen after makingfirst seizure, they all returned to the police station andthen recorded statement of accused No.3 Uttam at 12:30pm. On showing memorandum statement of accused.....55/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0455Rajesh and recovery panchanama, time of seizure wasshown as 11:35 to 12:35. He accepted the same ascorrect. He was also shown disclosure statement ofaccused Uttam and time of recording of statement isshown as 12:30 pm at the police station. He specificallystated that they all returned from Lal Pahadi after 2:00pm. Thus, as far as memorandum statement ofaccused Utttam is concerned, it is clarified by him thatall the accused were along with him when they went. Asper the narration of the accused, as the accused ledthem, the articles were recovered at their instance. 51. Besides the evidence of recovery of the saidArticles, the CA Reports show that the weapons whichwere recovered at the instance of the accused personsand forwarded to the CA, bear the blood stains of the.....56/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0456Blood Group “AB” which is of the deceased. The chartshows the incriminating articles and blood groupreflecting on it. Article-1 is the blood stained earthcollected from the spot having Blood Group “AB”.Article-3 four-teeth of the deceased having Blood Group“AB”. Article-4 hairs of the deceased seized from thespot having Blood Group “A”. Article-5 blood stains clothpiece seized from the spot bears Blood Group “AB”.Article-6 clothes of the deceased bears Blood Group“AB”. Article-7 Blood Sample of the deceaseddetermined as Blood Group “A”. Article-8 clothes ofaccused Uttam bears Blood Group “A”. Article-9 theclothes of accused Rajesh i.e. shirt and pant bears BloodGroup “AB”. Article-10 clothes of accused Kalu bearsBlood Group “AB”. Article-11 clothes of accused Umeshbears Blood Group ““AB”. Article-12 clothes of accusedKalu @ Prabhu bears Blood Group “AB”. Article-13.....57/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0457clothes of accused Sunil bears Blood Group “AB”.Article-14 sword recovered at the instance of accusedSunil bears Blood Group “AB”. Article-15 sword at theinstance of accused Umesh bears Blood Group “AB”.Article-16 knife recovered at the instance of accusedKalu bears Blood Group “AB”. Article-17 swordrecovered at the instance of accused Rajesh bears BloodGroup “AB”. Article-18 dagger seized at the instance ofaccused Utam bears Blood Group “AB”. Article-19 guptiseized at the instance of accused Kalu bears Blood Group“AB”. Article-20 sword recovered at the instance ofaccused Shrawandas bears Blood Group “AB”. Article-21clothes of accused Shrawandas and knife seized at theinstance of accused Rajendra and Article-22 clothes ofaccused Rajendra bear Blood Group “AB”. Article-24blood sample of 17 accused Sunil of Blood Group “AB”.Article-26 blood samples of accused Rajesh and.....58/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0458Shrawandas and Rajendra and Article-29 blood samplesof accused Umesh and Article-30 blood sample ofaccused Uttam, the Blood Group was not analyzed andresult was inconclusive. 52. Thus, on the clothes of accused, Blood Group“AB” of the deceased was found. As per the CA Report,Blood Group of accused Sunil is also determined as “AB”.However, nothing is record to show that he has alsosustained the injuries and, therefore, the blood isappearing on his clothes.53. As to the evidence of PW5 Shankar Shivankar,much stress is canvassed on the aspect that he has notnarrated the specific role attributed to each of the accusedpersons. It is pertinent to note that PW5 ShankarShivankar is a rustic witness......59/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0459 The evidence of the said witness requires to bescrutinized and appreciated in the light that 8-9 personshave assaulted the deceased and, therefore, the aspect ofhis background is not to be ignored. He witnessed theincident that number of assailants armed with deadlyweapons assaulting the deceased whether he/she wouldbe in a position to give a very accurate and photogenicversion as a whole thing happened in a few minutes,therefore, while appreciating such testimony, the courtshould give due regard to their background and the wholescenario in which the alleged incident has happened. Insofar as the testimony of this witness isconcerned, it stands corroborated by the aspects i.e.recovery of the weapons at the instance of the accusedpersons and the blood stains of Blood Group of thedeceased was found on the said articles. .....60/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.046054. The above aspect has been considered by theHon’ble Apex Court in the case of Annareddy SambasivaReddy and ors vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported inAIR 2009 SC 2661 wherein it has been observed that it istrue that neither PW1 nor PW3 assigned specific injuriesor specific overt act attributed to the accused, but lookingto the nature of the incident where large number ofpersons attacked D-1 and D-2, PW1, PW2 and PW3, itwould not have been possible for PW1 or PW3 toattribute specific injuries individually to each accused.How could it be possible for any person to recount withmeticulous exactitude the various individual acts done byeach assailant? Had they stated so, their testimony wouldhave been criticized as highly improbable and unnatural.The testimonies of eyewitness carry with it criticism ofbeing tutored if they give graphic details of the incidentand their evidence would be assailed as unspecific, vague,.....61/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0461and general if they fail to speak with precision. Thegolden principle is not to weigh such testimony in goldenscales, but to view it from the cogent standards that lendassurance about its trustworthiness. The said aspect is further considered by theHon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs.Hakam Singh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3759 whereinalso held that, “after closely going through the statementof PW3, we are of the opinion that PW3 is a truthfulwitness and unsuccessful attempt of the defence toconfront her with different types of fire arms i.e. whetherit was a rifle or it was a gun shot injury fired through 12bore gun or 303 rifle; all this cross- examination wasdirected against this rustic villager in order to discredither testimony. This is most unrealistic approach. We fail toappreciate how can a rustic village lady would explainabout bore of gun or rifle. P.W.3 whose presence in the.....62/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0462house was quite natural and she having clearly identifiedthe respondent who fired the gun at her husband shouldbe enough to establish the factum of whole prosecutionstory. To expect from her to give the description in aphotogenic manner is asking too much. The High Courtinstead of entering into split hairing the testimony of thiswitness with regard to the fire arms used in theoccurrence should have concentrated more on the hardtruth of the matter instead of finding fault with hertestimony. We fail to understand the manner in which thetestimony of this witness has been appreciated by theHigh Court. Sometimes while appreciating the testimonyof rustic villagers we are liable to commit mistake byloosing sight of their rural background and try toappreciate testimony from our rational angle. When alady is confronted with number of intruder in her housearmed with deadly weapons and showering bullets she.....63/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0463can not give a very accurate and photogenic version aswhole thing happened in a few minutes. Therefore, whileappreciating such testimony Court should give due regardto their rural background and the whole scenario in whichthe incident happened.55. In the light of the above observations, if theevidence of PW5 Shankar Shivankar is appreciated,admittedly, he is a layman and, therefore, whileappreciating such testimony, due regard to hisbackground and the whole scenario in which the incidenthappened is required to be considered. When 7-8 personshave attacked the deceased with the various weapons, inthat circumstances, it would be very difficult for thewitness to state the role of each and every accused. Thewhole testimony which was not shaken during the crossexamination sufficiently shows that the deceased wasassaulted by 7-8 persons and he has identified them as.....64/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0464assaillants. He has identified them in the court also. Theidentification of these accused persons before the court isa substantial evidence. 56. The another ground raised by learned defencecounsel is that the conduct of PW5 Shankar Shivankar isnot a natural conduct as he has not disclosed the saidincident immediately either to the family members of thedeceased or to the investigating officer and his statementwas recorded on the next date. Thus, much is said aboutthe fact that PW5 Shankar Shivankar did not disclose theincident to the family members or to the police. However,it must be noted that after seeking the accused givingsuch blows, the witness must have got scared. As a resultof the same, he might have left the place of spot. Therewas absolutely nothing abnormal in such conduct of thesaid witness and, therefore, it must be noted that merelybecause the said witness subsequently did not disclose.....65/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0465about the said incident to any other person till the nextday, we cannot jump to the conclusion that the witnesswas not present at the time of the incident. It must benoted that the witness was scared and, therefore, hemight have not disclosed the said incident to any personor he might have left the place due to the apprehension. 57. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of InBharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat,reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 has considered this aspectand observed that much importance cannot be attached tominor discrepancies and the reasons are obvious that, (1)by and large a witness cannot be expected to possess aphotographic memory and to recall the details of anincident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on themental screen; (2) ordinarily it so happens that a witnessis overtaken by events. The witness could not haveanticipated the occurrence which so often has an element.....66/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0466of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot beexpected to be attuned to absorb the details; (3) thepowers of observation differ from person to person. Whatone may notice, another may not. An object or movementmight emboss its image on one person's mind whereas itmight go unnoticed on the part of another; (4) by andlarge people cannot accurately recall a conversation andreproduce the very words used by them or heard by them.They can only recall the main purport of the conversation.It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human taperecorder; (5) in regard to exact time of an incident, or thetime duration of an occurrence, usually, people make theirestimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at thetime of interrogation. And one cannot expect people tomake very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals whichvaries from person to person; (6) ordinarily a witness.....67/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0467cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence ofevents which take place in rapid succession or in a shorttime span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed upwhen interrogated later on, and (7) a witness, thoughwholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the courtatmosphere and the piercing cross examination made bycounsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confusedregarding sequence of events, or fill up details fromimagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates onaccount of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelievedthough the witness is giving a truthful and honest accountof the occurrence witnessed by him, perhaps it is a sort ofa psychological defence mechanism activated on the spurof the moment.58. In case of Rana Partap vs. State of Haryana,reported in AIR 1983 SC 680, the Hon’ble Apex Court.....68/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0468observed that every person who witnesses a murder reactsin his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless andstand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and startwailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away tokeep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible.Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going tothe extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every onereacts in his own special way. There is no set rule ofnatural reaction. To discard the evidence of witnesses onthe ground that he did not react in any particular manneris to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic andunimaginative way. 59. In the case of Lalu Kamlakar Patil vs. State ofMaharashtra, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 417, the Hon’bleApex Court has also observed that a court has to keep inmind that different witnesses react differently underdifferent situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some.....69/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0469become perplexed, some start wailing and some run awayfrom the scene and yet some who have the courage andconviction come forward either to lodge an FIR or getthemselves examined immediately. Thus, it differs fromindividuals to individuals. There cannot be uniformity inhuman reaction. While the said principle has to be kept inmind, it is also to be borne in mind that if the conduct ofthe witness is so unnatural and is not in accord withacceptable human behaviour allowing of variations, thenhis testimony becomes questionable and is likely to bediscarded.60. Though we are staying in a civilized society,people are still afraid of involving themselves to bewitnesses of such incidents as they are scared ofharassment at the hands of the investigating agency. .....70/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0470 Admittedly, he has not disclosed the incidenton 15.6.2002, but on the next day, his statement wasrecorded that he narrated the incident. The investigatingofficer is not cross examined on recording delayedstatement. The evidence of PW5 Shankar Shivankar isnot totally unnatural. The investigating officer is notcross examined on delayed statement of witness.61. As far as the evidence, as to the discovery onthe basis of memorandum statement, is concerned, it isnot shattered during the cross examination. Merelybecause in one of statements timing was mentioned as12:30, it is not sufficient to discard the total evidence asto the recovery of the articles at the instance of theaccused persons. 62. The doctrine underlined under Section 27 ofthe Indian Evidence Act is founded on the principle that if.....71/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0471any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength ofany information obtained from a prisoner, such a discoveryis a guarantee that the information supplied by theprisoner is true.63. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act isinterpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofSubramanya vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in 2022LiveLaw SC 887 and held that the conditions necessary forthe applicability of Section 27 of the Act are that (1)Discovery of fact in consequence of an informationreceived from accused; (2) Discovery of such fact to bedeposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custodywhen he gave information; and (4) So much ofinformation as relates distinctly to the fact therebydiscovered is admissible. It has been further held thatwhat is admissible is the information and the same has tobe proved and the opinion form it by the police officer. It.....72/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0472has been further held that in other words, the exactinformation given by the accused while in custody whichled to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is,therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accusedand the prosecution that information given should berecorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exactinformation must be adduced through evidence. The basicidea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is thedoctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. Thedoctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact isdiscovered as a search made on the strength of anyinformation obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is aguarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner istrue. It is further held by the statement that the accusedled the police and the witnesses to the place where he hadconcealed the articles is not indicative of the informationgiven......73/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.047364. As far as the evidence of PW12 OmprakashChorware is concerned, he has specifically stated that inhis presence the accused have made memorandumstatements and in pursuance of the said memorandumstatements, the accused led them towards the spot fromwhich the discovery has to be made. The admissiongiven during the cross examination itself is sufficient toshow that earlier the statements of all four accusedpersons were recorded and, thereafter, along with fouraccused they proceeded towards places shown by theaccused and the accused persons led them towards thesaid places. Therefore, the recovery at the instance of theaccused, merely because the timing was mentionedincorrect, is not sufficient to discard the evidence of thesewitnesses.65. Thus, on appreciating the evidence, admittedly,the entire case of the prosecution relied upon the sole.....74/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0474testimony of PW5 Shankar Shivankar, corroborated by themedical evidence as the medical officer has specificallystated that injuries found on the persons of the deceasedare possible by the weapons referred to him and seized atthe instance of the accused persons. The blood stainedclothes of the accused on which Blood Group of thedeceased was found, is another incriminatingcircumstance, which connect the accused persons withthe alleged offence. The circumstance that the weaponsseized at the instance of the accused persons bear bloodstains which are of Blood Group of the deceased. 66. Thus, as far as the evidence of the sole witnessis concerned, it is corroborated by these circumstances. 67. As far as motive is concerned, the motive isprimarily known to the accused persons themselves and,therefore, it may not be possible for the prosecution to.....75/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0475explain what actually prompted or excited the accused tocommit a particular crime. In case of circumstantialevidence, the motive may be considered as circumstancewhich is relevant factor for the purpose of assessingevidence in the event that there is no unambiguousevidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The motiveloses all its significance in case of a direct evidenceprovided by eyewitnesses where the same is available, forthe reason that in such case the absence of motive cannotstand in the way of conviction. However, absence ofmotive in a case of depending entirely on circumstantialevidence is a factor that based in favour of the accused asit often forms the fulcrum of the prosecution story. 68. The evidence on record clearly establishes thatthere was previous enmity between the accused personsand the deceased. Moreover, the deceased was having.....76/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0476criminal background as he was involved in variouscriminal activities. 69. While appreciating the evidence of witnesses, itis not the number of witnesses, but the quality of theirevidence which is important, as there is no requirement inthe law of evidence stating that a particular number ofwitnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove afact. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth,is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legalsystem has laid emphasis on value, provided by eachwitness, as opposed to multiplicity or plurality ofwitnesses. It is thus quality and not quantity whichdetermines the adequacy of the evidence, as has beenprovided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Where thelaw requires examination of at least one attesting witness,it has been held that the number of witnesses producedover and above does not carry any weight. .....77/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.047770. It is certain legal preposition that theconviction of a person accused of committing an offence isgenerally based solely on the evidence i.e. either oral ordocumentary, but in exceptional circumstances may alsobe based solely on circumstantial evidence.71. The prosecution must establish its case beyondreasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from theweakness in the defence put up by the accused. However,a false defence may be brought to notice only to leadassurance to the court as regards various links in thechain of circumstantial evidence which are in themselvescomplete. The circumstances on the basis of whichconclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fullyestablished. The same must be of conclusive nature andmust exclude all possible hypothesis except the one to beproved......78/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.047872. It is cardinal principles of criminaljurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must beproved beyond all reasonable doubts. The proof beyondreasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond any doubt.It cannot be considered as if it is mathematical formula.The phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” has been oftenreferred to and is well understood.73. Learned Author “Glanville Williams” in hisbook, “The Proof of Guilt” wrote, to say that “the burdenof proving a crime is generally on the prosecution doesnot conclude all questions. What degree of quantum ofproof is needed, is likelihood or certainty or something inbetween these two extremes? This question in termraises a fundamental issue of penal policy”. 74. Thus, the proof beyond reasonable doubt doesnot mean proof beyond shadow of doubt. If the evidence.....79/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.0479is so strong against a man as to leave only, a remotepossibility in his favour, which can be dismissed withsentence “of course is possible”, but not in the leastprobable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.75. In the present case, the prosecution hasadduced the evidence to show that the accused personshave committed the crime. Thus, the prosecution hasproved the circumstances which show that the accusedpersons have committed. The evidence adduced iscogent, consistent, and does not affect the case of theprosecution. 76. In this view of the matter, as we find no meritsin the appeals, the appeals deserve to be dismissed andthe same is dismissed......80/- Judgment487 apeals715 and 747.048077. The accused persons are directed to surrenderbefore the Superintendent of Jail on or before 3.11.2025to undergo the jail sentence.78. The bail bonds of accused stand cancelled. TheR&P be sent back to the trial court. Appeals stand disposed of.(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)!! BrWankhede !!...../-