VINODKUMAR KEHARISINHA BANJARAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                           24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2023
                             WITH
              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1547 OF 2023
                              IN
                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2023

Mr. Vinodkumar Keharisinha Banjara                        ]
Aged-30 years, Occupation-Nil                             ]
R/at- Pruthvipur, Post Bilawan,                           ]
Taluka-Auraya, Uttar Pradesh                              ]
(At present in Yerawada Central Jail)                     ] … Appellant/
                                                              Applicant
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra                                  ]
(Through P.I. Paud Police Station District-Pune)          ] … Respondent
(CR No. 72/2017)

                          --------------------
Ms. Pooja Agrawal, appointed Advocate for the Appellant/ Applicant.

Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl. P.P., for the Respondent-State.
                        --------------------
                     CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                      SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                            DATE : 28 th APRIL, 2026.

JUDGMENT : [PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]

1.         The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated

04/01/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in


Manisha                                                                       1/21
                                            24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




Sessions Case No.454 of 2017. Vide the impugned Judgment and

Order, the Appellant was convicted as follows:

          (i)     The Appellant was convicted for commission of

          offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

          Code   (IPC)   and    was   sentenced      to    suffer      rigorous

          imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in

          default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for

          one month.



          (ii)    The Appellant was acquitted from the charges of

          commission of offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.



2.        Heard Ms. Pooja Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Appellant

and Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl. P. P., for the Respondent-

State.



3.        The Prosecution case in brief is as follows:



          The Appellant and his wife Sunitadevi were working on a


Manisha                                                                        2/21
                                          24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




brick-kiln. There were two other couples working at the same brick-

kiln. They were staying in the tin-shed constructed by the brick-kiln

owner near the brick-kiln. On 19/02/2017, the Appellant and his wife

were having a holiday. The other couples were working. In the

afternoon, at around 4:00 p.m., there was a quarrel between the

Appellant and his wife Sunitadevi. The Appellant tried to assault her.

She ran away from their shed but the Appellant caught her and gave a

blow with a heavy iron pickaxe on her head. She fell down

motionless. The incident was witnessed by the brick-kiln owner and

the co-workers. The Appellant tried to run away. The Appellant

escaped from the spot. The owner telephonically informed the

owner’s son about the incident. The owner’s son searched for the

Appellant on his motor cycle and caught him. The Appellant was

brought near the brick-kiln. He was tied to the wheel of a bullock

cart. The Police were informed, they reached the spot. Sunitadevi had

succumbed to her injuries. The Appellant was arrested. The F.I.R. was

lodged by the brick-kiln owner Ramesh Kamble vide C.R. No.72 of

2017 at Paud Police Station, District Pune. It was registered at 9:47




Manisha                                                                      3/21
                                            24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




p.m. The Appellant was put under arrest. He was already under the

custody of the police. During his pre-arrest medical examination,

injuries were noticed on his head, forehead and face. The

investigation was carried out. The spot panchanama was conducted.

The clothes of the Appellant and the deceased were seized. The

postmortem examination was conducted. The statements of the

witnesses were recorded and at the conclusion of the investigation the

chargesheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of

Session.



4.         During trial the Prosecution examined six witnesses including

the first informant- brick-kiln owner, the other labourer, pancha, the

Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The defence of the

Appellant was of denial. In addition, the Appellant stated that he had

suffered head injury requiring stitches. He did not know anything.

The first informant himself had killed the Appellant’s wife and had

lodged a false complaint against him-the Appellant.



5.         The learned Judge disbelieved the defence taken by the


Manisha                                                                        4/21
                                           24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




Appellant and relied on the evidence of the two eye-witnesses.

Accordingly, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the

Appellant.



6.        PW-1-Ramesh Kamble was the first informant and an eye-

witness. PW-1 deposed that his brick-kiln was situated at a distance

of 1 km from village Kasar Amboli. He had six labourers working for

his brick-kiln. The Appellant and his wife were working for PW-1 at

his brick-kiln. They were residing at the brick-kiln in a tin-shed. The

work started at 5:00 a.m. and used to go on till 5:00 p.m. On the day

of incident, the other labourers namely Ravi Shinde and his wife as

well as Kiran Adagale and his wife attended the work. The Appellant

and his wife did not attend the work as it was their holiday. At the

relevant time, they were in their tin-shed. At around 4:15 p.m., PW-1

heard the sound of quarrel between the Appellant and his wife. PW-1

rushed there and saw that the Appellant gave a blow with a pickaxe

on the head of Appellant’s wife. The Appellant’s wife fell down. The

Appellant ran away by jumping over the wall near the brick-kiln. PW-




Manisha                                                                       5/21
                                           24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




1 then called his son Vishal Kamble and informed him about the

incident. Vishal Kamble caught the Appellant and brought him at the

brick-kiln. PW-1 further deposed that while running away the

Appellant sustained injuries on his head. The Appellant was then tied

to a wheel of the bullock-cart. After that PW-1 lodged the F.I.R. with

Paud Police Station, Pune. The F.I.R is produced on record at Exhibit-

8. PW-1 identified the pickaxe used in the offence.



          In the cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that the Appellant

and the deceased had started working with him three months prior to

the incident and they were having five children. Their three children

were above 10 years of age. PW-1’s own house was situated near the

brick-kiln at a distance of about 15 feet. The brick-kiln was situated

between the workers’ shed and his house. PW-1 denied the suggestion

that the worker’s rooms were not visible from his house. He deposed

that he heard loud shouts of the deceased. When PW-1 rushed to the

spot of incident, the deceased was lying in injured condition. The

other workers Shinde and Adagale had also reached the spot. Except

them, nobody else was present at the spot. However, he further


Manisha                                                                       6/21
                                           24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




accepted that he had not personally seen while the Accused was

assaulting the victim. PW-1 further admitted that on the day of

incident, the Accused had also sustained injuries on his head and face.



           The F.I.R. lodged by PW-1 sufficiently corroborates his

deposition and gives some details. The F.I.R. can be safely used as a

corroborative piece of evidence to the deposition given by PW-1.



7.        PW-4-Kiran Adagale is another important eye-witness. He

deposed that he and his wife were working on the brick-kiln of PW-1.

The Appellant and his wife as well as one Ravi Shinde and his wife

were also working with them. They were staying in the shed

constructed near the brick-kiln. The incident took place on

19/02/2017. At about 4:15 p.m., PW-4 and others heard Sunitadevi

shouting loudly therefore, the four labourers and the owner ran in the

direction from where they heard the scream. PW-4 further deposed

that Sunitadevi was running and the Appellant was chasing her. They

were quarreling. The Appellant gave a blow with heavy pickaxe on




Manisha                                                                       7/21
                                           24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




the head of Sunitadevi. The Appellant tried to run away with the

weapon by jumping over the compound wall. PW-4 and others tried

to give water to Sunitadevi but she had died on the spot. She had

suffered bleeding injury on her head. PW-4 further deposed that PW-1

made a phone call to his son Vishal and told him about the incident.

After that, Vishal and his friend brought the Appellant. The Appellant

was tied to a wheel of the bullock-cart. The Police were informed

telephonically. They came near the brick-kiln. They took custody of

the Appellant. They recorded statement of PW-4. He deposed that his

statement was recorded in the Court as well. He identified the

Appellant produced through video conferencing.



          In the cross-examination, PW-4 deposed that PW-1 was staying

in a house near PW-4’s tin-shed. It was at a distance of around 20

feet. He admitted that between the tin-shed and the spot of incident,

there were heaps of bricks, soil and coal. The heap of bricks was

around 20 to 25 feet in height. PW-4 accepted that the spot where the

deceased fell down was visible from the labourers’ shed. The spot




Manisha                                                                       8/21
                                          24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




where the work of arranging the bricks was going on, was also not

visible from the place where the deceased had fallen down. At the

time of incident, PW-4, Ravi Shinde and their wives were arranging

the bricks. PW-4 admitted that he was concentrating on his work. He

further deposed that, when he heard the scream, he went in that

direction and saw the deceased had fallen down. PW-4 deposed that

the deceased was motionless. He had not seen the Appellant having

injuries on his head and face. PW-4 further deposed that after the

incident, he had left the job with that brick-kiln. He denied the

suggestion that PW-1 was harassing the deceased and when the

Appellant tried to stop PW-1, at that time, PW-1 assaulted the

Appellant and the deceased with a sharp weapon. PW-4 also denied

the suggestion that the Appellant had become unconscious because of

the assault caused by the deadly weapon and that he was unconscious

when he was tied to a wheel of the bullock-cart.



8.        PW-3-Vishal Kamble was PW-1’s son who had apprehended

the Appellant after the incident. He deposed that, on 19/02/2017 at




Manisha                                                                      9/21
                                          24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




about 4:15 p.m. he received the phone call from his father. At that

time, he and his friend Suresh Salunkhe had gone to Ghotavde Road

on a motor cycle. PW-1 informed PW-3 that there was a quarrel

between the Appellant and his wife, and that the Appellant had

assaulted the deceased on head with a pickaxe, and that he had run

away by jumping over the compound wall towards Good deal

company. PW-3 then went on his motorcycle towards that direction.

He saw that the Appellant was trying to run away. PW-3 further

deposed that, while running the Appellant fell down and suffered

injuries on his forehead and head. PW-3 and his friend Suresh

apprehended the Appellant and brought him to the brick-kiln. The

Appellant was tied to the bullock-cart. They had taken the Appellant

to the brick-kiln with the murder weapon. By that time, the deceased

had already died at the spot. The police came at the spot at around

5:15 p.m. and took custody of the Appellant.



          In the cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that his father was

staying in a room constructed by him (PW-1) near the tin-shed where

the labourers were staying. It was at about 50 feet distance from the


Manisha                                                                    10/21
                                          24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




shed. He saw the Appellant after about 10 minutes from receiving the

phone call from his father. Then, PW-3 and his friend took 10

minutes to catch the Appellant. PW-3 had seen where the Appellant

had suffered the injuries. He denied that the Appellant had fallen

down with his head downwards. PW-3 admitted that since the

Appellant had suffered serious injury to head he apprehended that as

the owner of the brick-kiln they themselves would be in trouble. But

PW-3 denied the suggestion that they had instructed the other

labourers as to what was to be told to the police about the injuries.

PW-3 denied the suggestion that PW-1 had assaulted the Appellant

and the Appellant’s wife, and that he caught the Appellant when the

Appellant was trying to save himself by running away.



9.        PW-2-Anil Bansode is a pancha for spot panchanama. The

panchanama is produced on record at Exhibit-13. The map was

produced at Exhibit-13/A. PW-2 deposed that the police had seized

the iron pickaxe having bloodstains, plain soil and bloodstained soil

from the spot. There is some discrepancy as to exactly when the spot

panchanama was conducted. Whether it was conducted on


Manisha                                                                    11/21
                                            24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




19/02/2017 in the evening or in the morning on 20/02/2017.

However, the spot of incident is not in dispute.



            In the cross-examination, PW-2 accepted that the spot of

incident was not visible from the worker’s shed, and that between the

heap of bricks and the compound wall there was space of about 5

feet. The incident had occurred there.



10.       PW-5-Dr. Sunil Patil had conducted the postmortem

examination on the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that there

were following two injuries on the dead body:

          i. CLW on the scalp-9 cm in length.

          ii. Fracture on occipital bone horizontally about 3 x 2 cm.

          The cause of death was “cardio respiratory arrest due to

asphyxia due to hypovolemic shock due to grievous head injury” and

that both the injuries were caused by a heavy weapon. The

postmortem notes were produced on record at Exhibit-34. There was

hardly any cross-examination of this witness. The cause of death is




Manisha                                                                      12/21
                                          24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




hardly in dispute.



11.       PW-6-Narayan More had conducted the investigation. PW-6

deposed that when he started the investigation, the Accused was

already brought to the police station. The Accused was sent for pre-

arrest medical examination. The Accused was then arrested, his

clothes were seized, they were bloodstained. PW-6 then conducted the

spot panchanama. The bloodstained weapon, the plain soil and the

bloodstained soil were seized from the spot. The map of the spot was

prepared. Clothes of the deceased were seized. The postmortem

examination was caused to be conducted. The articles were sent to

FSL. After the investigation was over, Mr. Golde, P.I.,             filed the

chargsheet.



           In the cross-examination, PW-6 deposed that during the

investigation, he recorded statements of atleast of around five to six

eye-witnesses. He denied that the spot panchanama was conducted at

7:45 p.m. on 19/02/2017. PW-6 explained that since the informant’s

house was around 20 feet away from the place of incident, that house


Manisha                                                                    13/21
                                           24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




was not shown in the spot panchanama or in the map. PW-6 stated

that the spot of incident was between the compound wall and the

heap of bricks but was not in a small lane between the compound wall

and the bricks. PW-6 was not aware that the pancha for spot

panchanama was related to the first informant. According to him, the

Appellant had suffered head injury with a hard weapon. PW-6

admitted that his investigation did not reveal as to what was the

dispute between the Appellant and the deceased.



12.       This was the evidence led by the Prosecution’s witnesses. In

addition, the Prosecution produced the CA Report on record which

shows that the clothes of the deceased as well as the clothes of the

Appellant showed presence of blood of ‘B’ Group. The pickaxe

showed presence of human blood but the blood group was

inconclusive.



13.       The statement of the Accused was recorded under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). After that, the




Manisha                                                                     14/21
                                          24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




Medical Certificate regarding the injuries of the Appellant was

produced on record. It was admitted on behalf of the Accused.

Hence, it was exhibited. It showed that the Appellant had suffered

one CLW over parietal region of head of the size 6 x 1 x 1 cm. There

was other CLW over forehead of the size 4 x 1 x 1 cm and there was

abrasion on nose. The learned Judge relied on the evidence of PW-1,

PW-3 and PW-4. The learned Judge referred to the subsequent

conduct of the Appellant in trying to run away with the murder

weapon. Considering the overall evidence, the learned Judge

convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned above.



Submissions of Ms. Pooja Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the
Appellant :
14.       Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that PW-1 and

PW-4 are unreliable witnesses. They are interested witnesses. PW-1 is

trying to save himself. PW-4 was under the fear of PW-1. Therefore,

both of them have to be discarded. PW-3 was only trying to help his

father PW-1. His evidence is not reliable. The Prosecution has not

proved the motive in this case. The injuries suffered by the Accused


Manisha                                                                    15/21
                                           24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




are not explained. None of the children of the deceased and the

Appellant was examined. They were the most natural witnesses but

they were deliberately kept back. From the description of the spot, it

was clear that from the place where PW-4 was working or from the

place where the labourers and PW-1 were staying, it was not possible

to see the actual incident. The evidence shows that the witnesses have

admitted that they had seen that the deceased had already fallen down

when they reached the spot, that means, they could not have seen the

actual assault. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also relied on the

admission given by the PW-1 that he had not actually seen the assault

caused by the Appellant.



Submissions of Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, learned Addl. P.P. for
the Respondent-State :
15.       Learned Addl. P. P. on the other hand submitted that there is

no reason to disbelieve PW-1 and PW-4. Both of them were natural

witnesses. She submitted that the Appellant has not taken up a specific

defence in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that

the injuries suffered by the Appellant were caused due to the assault


Manisha                                                                     16/21
                                           24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




committed by PW-1. The Appellant has not explained as to how he

had suffered those injuries by attributing them to PW-1. There is no

plausible reason for PW-1 to have assaulted the deceased. She

submitted that PW-1 and PW-4 are wholly reliable witnesses. Their

evidence is supported by the other circumstances and also by the

evidence of PW-3. The description given by the eye-witnesses is

supported by the medical evidence. She submitted that the

Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.



Reasons and Conclusion :

16.       We have considered these submissions. The case depends on

the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4. Though the learned Counsel for the

Appellant has relied on the statement in the cross-examination that

PW-1 had deposed that he had not seen the Appellant assaulting the

deceased, however, his attention is not drawn to his deposition to the

contrary or to the statement given in his F.I.R. The evidence of PW-1

is quite clear. He has described the incident in detail. He has deposed

in his examination-in-chief that when he reached the spot after

hearing the commotion he had noticed that the Appellant hit iron


Manisha                                                                     17/21
                                            24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




pickaxe on the head of his wife and due to that assault she fell down

on the ground. His F.I.R. also describes the incident in the same

manner. In that statement also, he has stated that he had seen the

incident of actual assault. The F.I.R. is lodged first in point of time.

Therefore, there is no substance in the submissions of the learned

Counsel for the Appellant that PW-1 could not have or did not see the

incident.



17.         PW-4-Kiran Adagale’s evidence is equally important. He was

an independent witness. He has deposed that after the incident he had

left the job with PW-1. Therefore, PW-4 was not under PW-1’s

authority or pressure. He has described the incident in detail. PW-4

has also stated that the Appellant had given the fatal blow on the

deceased. We find that, PW-1 and PW-4 are wholly reliable witnesses.

There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve them. Their evidence is

further supported by the medical evidence in the form of PW-5-Dr.

Sunil Patil’s evidence and his deposition about the postmortem

examination. The blow given by the Appellant was quite forceful and

it had caused immediate death.


Manisha                                                                      18/21
                                            24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




18.       The evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 is further supported by the

subsequent events deposed by PW-3. As per his deposition, after PW-3

received phone call from his father, he searched for the Appellant.

PW-3 was on a motor cycle and therefore, chased the Appellant and

could apprehend him. PW-3 with the help of his friend brought the

Appellant back to the spot of incidence and kept him tied to a

bullock-cart. He also brought back the weapon carried by the

Appellant. Shortly, thereafter the police were informed, who took the

Appellant’s custody.



19.       As far as the injuries suffered by the Appellant are concerned,

PW-3 has stated that while trying to run away the Appellant fell down

causing injuries to his head and forehead. He had also shown that

particular spot to the police. There is no reason to disbelieve PW-3 on

that aspect. Apart from that, the clothes of the Appellant showed

presence of blood of ‘B’ Group which was also the blood group of the

blood found on the clothes of the deceased. This is one more

additional incriminating circumstance against the Appellant. The

weapon seized from the possession of the Appellant which was


Manisha                                                                      19/21
                                             24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




brought at the spot by PW-3 also showed presence of human blood.

All these are corroborative incriminating pieces of circumstances.

Considering this clear, consistent and cogent version of the witnesses,

failure to bring the motive on record pales in comparison. The direct

evidence of the eye-witnesses in this case prevails over any other

consideration. In our opinion, the Prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt based on this direct and corroborative

pieces of evidence. In this view of the matter, we do not see any

reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and order. As a

result, we pass the following order:



                                  ORDER

          (i)    The Criminal Appeal No.477 of 2023 is

                 dismissed.



          (ii)   However, it is clarified that the Appellant shall

                 get the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of

                 Cr.P.C.




Manisha                                                                       20/21
                                              24-APEAL-477-2023 WITH IA-1547-2023.doc




          (iii)   With these observations, the Criminal Appeal

                  No.477 of 2023 is disposed of.



          (iv)    With disposal of the Appeal, the connected

                  Interim Application No. 1547 of 2023 is also

                  disposed of.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                        (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)




Manisha                                                                        21/21