Bombay High Court
HAJIMALANG MATAB NADAFversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The conviction under Section 307 IPC is upheld, but the life sentence is reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
Summary
The appellant, Hajimalang Matab Nadaf, was convicted by the Sessions Court for an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. He appealed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, challenging the admissibility of the knife seized after a delay, the credibility of the sole eyewitness, and the failure to consider his alibi. The High Court examined the testimony of the injured victim, an informant, medical experts, and forensic reports linking the victim’s blood to the seized knife, finding the evidence sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the appellant had not successfully established an alibi and that the prosecution’s case was not fatal despite the absence of other eyewitnesses. While upholding the conviction, the Court deemed the life sentence excessive in the circumstances and reduced it to seven years rigorous imprisonment with the original fine and default imprisonment. The appeal was therefore partly allowed, modifying the sentence but leaving the conviction intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence, including the delayed seizure of the weapon and forensic blood match, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the appellant’s plea of alibi was proved and should have been considered.
- Whether the life sentence imposed for the attempt to murder is proportionate or should be reduced.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 235(1), 235(2), 374(2)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 304(II), 307, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- attempt to murder
- Section 307 IPC
- conviction
- sentence reduction
- evidence admissibility
- alibi
- forensic evidence
- criminal appeal
Judgment
Appeal-655-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.655 OF 2024
WITH
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO.112 OF 2026
Hajimalang Matab Nadaf,
Age 43 years, Occupation: Labour,
Residing at Chapalgaowadi;
Tal-Akkalkot, District Solapur. … Appellant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Inspector Incharge,
Akkalkot (North) Police Station,
District Solapur,
2. Shahid Gafar Nadaf,
Age 19 years, Occu: Shopkeeper,
R/o. Post Chapalgaowadi, Tal – Akkalkot
District – Solapur. … Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Appearance :
Mr. Ishaan Kapse, Advocate for the Appellant (Appointed).
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for Respondent No.1 - State
__________________________________________________________________
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Reserved on : 15th September, 2026
Pronounced on : 06th October, 2026
JUDGMENT : [PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
1. This is an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’] against the
Sameer 1 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2023, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.224/2019,
convicting and sentencing the Appellant as follows :
“1) Accused Hajimalang Matab Nadaf is hereby convicted vide
u/sec.235(2) of Cr. P. C. for the ofence punishable u/sec.307 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufer rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay ine of Rs.10,000/- (in words
Ten thousand Rs. only) in default of payment of ine to undergo
S. I. for six months.
2) Accused Hajimalang Matab Nadaf is hereby acquitted vide
u/sec. 235(1) of Cr. P. C. of the ofence punishable u/sec.323 of
Indian Penal Code.
3) Accused Hajimalang Matab Nadaf is hereby acquitted vide
u/sec. 235(1) of Cr. P. C. of the ofence punishable u/sec.504 of
Indian Penal Code.
4) Accused Hajimalang Matab Nadaf is hereby acquitted vide
u/sec. 235(1) of Cr. P. C. of the ofence punishable u/sec.506 of
Indian Penal Code.
5) …. …… …… …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
6) …. …… …… …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
7) …. …… …… …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
8) …. …… …… …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
9) …. …… …… …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
10) …. …… …… …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
11) …. …… …… …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
2. The Prosecution’s case, as revealed from the police report, is that,
on 21.06.2019 at about 08:00 p.m. when Shahid Gafoor Nadaf
[hereinafter referred to as ‘Injured’] was lying on the platform in front
of the kirana shop of the Informant – Ladlemashak Nadaf in village –
Chapalgaowadi, Taluka – Akkalkot, District – Solapur and watching
mobile phone, the Appellant came and asked Injured as to why he
Sameer 2 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
argued with him in the Mosque and said that, he will kill and stabbed the
Injured with knife in the stomach. The injured sufered bleeding injury.
The witnesses present over there came to the rescue of the Injured. The
Injured was given medical treatment. The incident was reported to the
police and Crime No.0218/2019 came to be registered with Akkalkot
(‘North’) Police Station for the ofence punishable under Sections 307,
323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to
as ‘IPC’].
3. The Investigating Oicer conducted the Spot Panchnama and
recorded the statement of the Injured and witnesses. The Appellant
came to be arrested. The knife came to be seized at the instance of the
Appellant. The necessary documents were collected. The seized articles
were referred for examination to the Chemical Analyser (CA). On
completion of the investigation, the Appellant came to be charge-
sheeted. After the committal order by the learned Magistrate, the
learned Trial Court framed the charge for the ofence punishable under
Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC against the Appellant below
Exhibit – 5. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To
prove the charge, the Prosecution examined the following witnesses :
PW Nos. Names
PW – 1 Shahid Gafoor Shaikh - Injured
PW – 2 Ladlemashak Imam Nadaf - Informant
Sameer 3 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
PW – 3 Shankar Dhondappa Jamindar - Panch for the discovery of
knife
PW – 4 Dr. Rohan Shashikant Khairatkar, who examined the
Injured at the Civil Hospital, Solapur;
PW – 5 Dr. Ashok Ramu Rathod, who examined the Injured at the
Rural Hospital, Mandrup;
PW – 6 Kalappa Satu Pujari – Investigating Oicer;
3.1. The relevant documents, such as, the Report / FIR,
Panchnamas, Injury Certiicates, CA reports etc. were brought on record
in the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. After iling of evidence
closure pursis by the Prosecution, the statement of the Appellant came
to be recorded under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.PC. The Appellant denied
the Prosecution evidence. On appreciating the evidence available on
record, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and
Order convicting and sentencing the Appellant.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned APP
for the Prosecution. Scrutinized the evidence available on record.
[A] It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that,
there is unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The
evidence on record do not form the complete chain of events. Though
the Prosecution claimed that, several persons were present at the spot
of incident, only one eyewitness was examined, who was an interested
witness. The discovery of the weapon under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Evidence Act’] is a
Sameer 4 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
weak piece of evidence, as the pancha partially not supported the case
of Prosecution in respect of voluntary disclosure of the place from
where the knife was seized. The knife was seized after four (04) days
from arrest and from the open space accessible to the public. The
forensic evidence do not support the Prosecution’s case in its entirety,
and the principle of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ comes into play. The
learned Trial Court did not record any inding in respect of plea of alibi
taken by the Appellant. The Prosecution failed to establish the motive
behind the crime. He submitted that, the Appeal be allowed and the
conviction and sentence be set aside. In support of his submissions, he
relied on the decisions in Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs. State of West
Bengal; (2023) 6 SCC 605 and Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh; (2023) 9 SCC 810.
[B] It is submitted by the learned APP that, the Prosecution examined
the Injured witness, who deposed of the incident. The evidence on
record goes to show that, the Appellant came with a knife and stabbed
the Injured witness. The spot of incident is admitted by the Appellant.
The medical evidence corroborate the testimony of the Injured witness.
The blood of the Injured was found on the knife. The learned Trial Court
has rightly appreciated the evidence on record, and no interference was
called for in the impugned Judgment and Order and the Appeal be
dismissed.
Sameer 5 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
5. As regards the incident is concerned, the Prosecution’s case
mainly rests on the testimony of PW – 1 [Injured Witness] and PW – 2
[Informant]. The evidence of PW – 1 [the Injured witness] shows that,
when he was lying on the platform in front of the kirana shop of PW – 2
[Informant] on 21.06.2019 at about 08:00 p.m., the Appellant came
there and questioned him as to who was he to ask him and why he
quarreled with him in the Mosque and dealt the forceful blow in his
stomach on the right side by the knife. He deposed that, he sufered
bleeding injury and the Informant and other persons came and rescued
him from the Appellant. He deposed that, due to the bleeding, his
clothes were stained with blood and he was taken to the Police Station
and from there to the Rural Hospital where he was given irst aid and
thereafter referred to the Civil Hospital, Solapur. He deposed of one
incident dated 13.05.2019 prior to the incident in question when the
Appellant came under the inluence of liquor and switched of bore-well
motor pump and he gave understanding to the Appellant. He further
deposed that, he was operated in the Civil Hospital and had 44 stitches
on his stomach. The police recorded his statement and statement was
also recorded before the Magistrate. He identiied the knife [Article – P-
A-1] and his clothes [Articles – P-A-2, P-A-3 and P-A-4].
6. PW – 1 [Injured witness] was subjected to the cross-examination.
Nothing has come in the cross-examination to create any dent in his
Sameer 6 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
evidence. The entire cross-examination is in the nature of suggestion.
The evidence of PW – 1 [Injured witness] in the examination-in-chief
remained unshaken.
7. The evidence of PW – 2 [Informant] shows that, the place of
incident was in front of his kirana shop by named ‘Mashala-Allah Kirana
Shop’. He deposed that, PW – 1 [Injured witness] was watching his
mobile phone in front of his shop and there were other persons present.
He deposed of the incident of stabbing by the Appellant to PW – 1
[Injured witness] by the knife. He deposed that, he and the persons
present over there, rescued PW – 1 [Injured witness] and was taken to
the Police Station, and thereafter to the Hospital. He deposed of
lodging the report below Exhibit – 37 to the concerned Police Station.
He identiied the knife [Article – P-A-1]. He was also subjected to the
cross-examination and his testimony remained unshaken. His evidence
corroborate the testimony of PW – 1 [Injured witness] in all material
aspects.
8. The evidence of PW – 5 [Dr. Ashok Ramu Rathod] shows that, in
the year – 2019, he was attached to the Rural Hospital, Akkalkot as
Medical Oicer and on 21.06.2019, around 7:30 p.m., PW – 1 [Injured]
came to the Hospital with injury and history of assault by sharp object.
He examined PW – 1 [Injured] and found incise wound over right side
Sameer 7 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
umbilicus over abdomen, size 4 cm x 3 cm x deep and caused by hard and
sharp weapon and the age of injury was less than 24 hours and it was
grievous in nature. He provided irst aid to the Injured and referred for
further management to the higher center. He deposed that, the injury
was grievous in nature and likely to cause death. He deposed that, he
issued Medico Legal Certiicate [MLC] below Exhibit – 50. His evidence
shows that, the knife [Article – P-1-A] was shown to him and he deposed
that, the injury shown by him in the certiicate was possible by the said
weapon. The cross-examination could not create any dent in the
evidence of this witness. The suggestion that, the injury was not
grievous in nature is denied. The Exhibit – 50 corroborates the
testimony of this Medical Oicer.
9. The evidence of PW – 4 [Dr. Rohan Shashikant Khairatkar] shows
that, since June – 2018, he was attached to the Solapur Civil Hospital as
a Medical Superintendent. On 21.06.2019, PW – 1 [Injured] was brought
with injury in his stomach, which was sutured by the Medical Oicer of
Rural Hospital, Akkalkot. PW – 1 [Injured] was admitted for treatment.
The stab wound was grievous in nature on the vital part of body, which
was likely to cause death. He deposed of providing medical treatment
and operation to PW – 1 [Injured]. His evidence shows that, the medical
papers were exhibited below Exhibit – 48, collectively. His evidence
shows that, the knife [Article – P-A-1] was shown to him and he deposed
Sameer 8 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
that, the injury sufered by PW – 1 [Injured] was possible by the said
weapon. He expressed that, the said injury was possible if a person falls
down on rocky surface. Though in the cross-examination, it has come
that, the depth of the injury was not mentioned in the MLC and the
witness was unable to state as to whether the said injury was possible
due to fall on the surface having stones, his evidence in the
examination-in-chief remained undiluted.
10. The evidence of PW – 3 [Shankar Dhondappa Jamindar] and the
evidence of PW – 6 [Kalappa Satu Pujari], the Investigating Oicer
shows that, the knife [Article – P-A-1] was discovered and seized at the
instance of the Appellant on 26.06.2019 while in police custody. The
memorandum and seizure panchnama in that regard are brought on
record below Exhibits – 42 and 43, respectively. The evidence of both
the witnesses shows that, the Appellant disclosed the place where the
knife [Article – P-A-1] was hidden and pursuant to his statement, the
Appellant led the Investigating Oicer and pancha to one tin-shed in
front of his house and removed the knife [Article – P-A-1] from the
earthen stove. The evidence of PW – 3 [Shankar Dhondappa Jamindar]
and the evidence of PW – 6 [Kalappa Satu Pujari], the Investigating
Oicer, in respect of the discovery and the seizure of knife is consistent
and the same is corroborated by previous memorandum and seizure
panchnama. In view of the cogent and consistent evidence in respect of
Sameer 9 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
discovery and seizure of knife [Article – P-A-1], the delay of three [03)
days for the same from the date of arrest will not be suicient to
discard the said evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The CA
report below Exhibit – 58 in respect of blood group of PW – 1 [Injured]
shows the blood group as ‘B’ and the CA report below Exhibit – 59
shows the human blood of ‘B’ group on the kinfe [Article – A-P-1]. Thus,
in view of the said reports, the discovery and seizure of the knife
[Article - A-P-1] becomes relevant.
11. The evidence available on record is discussed above. The evidence
of the Injured witness stands on the higher pedestal. The evidence of
PW – 1 [Injured] inds corroboration by the evidence of PW – 2
[Informant] and the medical evidence. The injury on PW – 1 [Injured] is
proved through the medical evidence. The identity of the Appellant is
not in dispute. The answer to Question No.57 put to the Appellant by
the learned Trial Court shows that, as per the instructions of the
Appellant, his Counsel admitted the spot panchnama below Exhibit – 38.
The Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the Appellant
assaulted PW – 1 [Injured] on the date and at the place mentioned in the
charge. The weapon of assault having blood stains of PW – 1 [Injured]
came to be discovered and seized at the instance of the Appellant. The
FIR was lodged immediately on the next day. Non-examination of the
other witnesses is not fatal, as the Injured witness is examined by the
Sameer 10 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
Prosecution and his testimony supports the case of Prosecution in
respect of assault by the Appellant. As the Prosecution’s case is based
on the testimony of Injured eyewitness, the motive behind the crime
becomes inconsequential.
12. As regards the submissions in respect of alibi is concerned, there
is nothing in the cross-examination of the witnesses that, the plea of
alibi was taken by the Appellant. What is seen from the record is that, at
the time of inal arguments before the learned Trial Court, the learned
Counsel for the Appellant tendered across the bar the Exhibit – 64,
which is a copy of discharge summary showing the name of the
Appellant as a patient and his date of admission as 22.06.2019 at
12:45:43 p.m and date of discharge as 23.06.2019. The incident is dated
21.06.2019 at 08:00 p.m. It is settled position under the law that, the
plea of alibi is required to be proved in the trial by cogent and reliable
evidence. In that regard, useful reference can be made to the decision in
Kamal Prasad and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2023) 10
SCC 172. The scrutiny of the evidence on record nowhere shows that,
the Appellant had proved the plea of alibi. Thus, non-consideration of
plea of alibi by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted, as it was
neither the plea of alibi by the Appellant before the learned Trial Court
nor it was proved.
Sameer 11 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
13. In Nikhil Chandra Mondal [supra], the case of Prosecution was
based on circumstantial evidence, and therefore is of no assistance to
the Appellant. In Pramod Kumar Mishra [supra], it was the Appeal
against the conviction for the ofence under Section 307 of IPC and
sentence was ive (05) years rigorous imprisonment. It is observed that,
it is a well-established principle that while imposing sentence, aggravating
and mitigating circumstances of a case are to be taken into consideration.
The observations in the case of Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of A.P.;
(1977) 3 SCC 287, wherein, the objects behind sentencing and the factors
to be kept in mind while imposing the punishments are discussed.
14. In the case at hand, the Appellant is convicted for the ofence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to sufer
imprisonment for life with ine and default sentence on failure to pay
the ine. The ofence of attempt to commit murder is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to ine; and if hurt is caused to the person,
then punishment may extend to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is mentioned before. The assault on the injured witness
is by knife in the stomach. The medical evidence shows one incised /
stab wound. The Injured witness was discharged from the Hospital on
13.06.2019, i.e. after nine (09) days. Neither it is the case of Prosecution,
Sameer 12 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
nor there is evidence that, due to the intervention of the Informant, the
Appellant was prevented from inlicting more injuries on the Injured
witness. In FIR/Report below Exh. 37 lodged by PW-2 (Informant), it is
stated that, after one blow by the knife to PW-1(Injured) the Appellant
assaulted by hands and legs. From this, a clear interference can be
drawn that, Appellant did not intend to commit the murder of PW-1
(Injured). Though the intention to commit the murder is not seen, the
knowledge of the consequences of such an act, i.e. it may cause death,
can very well be attributed to the Appellant. The observations in
Paragraph No.35 of the Judgment by the learned Trial Court indicate
that, the Appellant was convicted previously for the ofence punishable
under Section 304(II) of IPC and sentenced to sufer Rigorous
Imprisonment for seven (07) years and the Appeal was pending against
the Judgment of conviction dated 10.10.2014 in Sessions Case
No.366/2013. This goes to show that, the said conviction was much prior
to the incident in question and the Appeal was iled against the said
conviction. In Paragraph No.38 of the said Judgment, it is observed by
the learned Trial Court that, the Court did not notice any repentance on
the face of the Appellant during entire trial. At the time of incident, the
Appellant appears to be 40 years old. The impugned Judgment shows
that, the Appellant was behind the bars from 23.06.2019 to 14.07.2020
and thereafter, from 05.04.2021 till date. This shows that, the Appellant
Sameer 13 of 14
Appeal-655-2024.doc
is behind the bars for a period of six (06) years and some months. The
occupation of the Appellant is shown as Labourer. Considering all these
factors, in our considered view, the substantive punishment awarded by
the learned Trial Court is excessive and the same can be scaled down to
strike a balance between the nature of crime and sentence. In our view,
the rigorous imprisonment for seven (07) years, with the same amount
of ine and default sentence, would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
[a] The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
[b] The conviction awarded to the Appellant by the learned Trial
Court for the ofence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is
maintained.
[c] The sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court on the
Appellant is modiied to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven
(07) years and ine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to pay the ine,
to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six (06) months.
[d] Rest of the operative order passed by the learned Trial Court
shall remain the same.
[e] The fees of learned counsel appointed for the Appellant is
quantiied to ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only)
to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority.
(f) In view of disposal of the Appeal, pending application, if any,
stands disposed of accordingly.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sameer 14 of 14
Checking your session…