Bombay High Court
MANJU @ MANJYA @ MANGESH @ MANGYA @ MANJUNATH SHANMUKH GUMANSTEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the conviction under Sections 302 and 324 IPC stands.
Summary
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and assault under Section 324 IPC, receiving life imprisonment and a three‑year rigorous imprisonment respectively, with both sentences to run concurrently. The conviction was based primarily on the testimony of the deceased's seven‑year‑old daughter, who witnessed the assault, corroborated by a neighbour, panchas, medical reports, and the recovery of the murder weapon and blood‑stained clothes. The appellant challenged the reliability of the child witness, the absence of a motive, and the lack of a caste certificate for the deceased, seeking acquittal. The High Court held that the child’s evidence, despite minor omissions, was reliable and was supported by other material evidence, and therefore the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction under Sections 302 and 324 IPC upheld, while the acquittals under the Atrocities Act and other statutes were affirmed.
Issues considered
- The prosecution’s case rests on the testimony of a child witness; is such evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction under Sections 302 and 324 IPC?
- Whether the absence of a caste certificate justifies acquittal under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether the recovered knife and blood‑stained clothing constitute admissible corroborative evidence.
- Whether the omissions in the child’s police statement affect the credibility of her testimony.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27(3)
- Bombay Police Act — s. 135
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 324, 428
- Protection of Civil Rights Act — s. 7(1)(d)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(xi)
Subjects
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 324
- child witness
- evidence reliability
- Atrocities Act
- conviction upheld
- criminal appeal
Judgment
:1: 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.809 OF 2024
Manju @ Manjya @ Mangesh @ Mangya
@ Manjunath Shanmukh Gumanste …..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .….Respondent
…..
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1933 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.809 OF 2024
-----
Ms. Saswati Deb, Advocate (appointed) for the Appellant.
Ms. Kranti Hiwrale, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 16th & 17th JUNE, 2026
JUDGMENT : [PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]
1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order
dated 21.9.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities), Thane in Sessions
Case No.307/2014.
2. Heard Ms. Saswati Deb, learned appointed Advocate
for the Appellant and Ms. Kranti Hiwrale, learned APP for the
Respondent-State.
1 of 18
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
3. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :
i. He was convicted for commission of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default, to
suffer RI for two months.
ii. He was convicted for commission of the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer
RI for three years.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
He was given set-off under Section 428 of IPC. He was acquitted
from the charges of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Atrocities Act’), under Section
7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, under Section 7 read
with 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act, and under Section 37(1)(A)
punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
4. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:
. The Appellant was occupying half portion of a small
house occupied by one Mahananda Kerve and her family.
Mahananda had lost her husband. She was residing with her
2 of 18
:3: 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
mother-in-law, a young daughter, and a younger son. It is the
prosecution case that the Appellant was trying to establish some
relationship with her. As Mahananda did not respond, in the night
between 7.1.2014 and 8.1.2014, the Appellant entered
Mahananda’s room where she was sleeping with her children. He
assaulted Mahananda with a knife on her neck and other parts.
The children woke up and saw the incident. They started shouting.
Her mother-in-law came to help Mahananda. The Appellant
assaulted all of them and ran away. The neighbours gathered
there. The police were informed. The injured Mahananda was
taken to the hospital but she was declared dead. The investigation
was carried out after Mahananda’s mother-in-law lodged the FIR
vide C.R. No.I-5/2014 at Rabale MIDC police station. The dead
body was sent for postmortem examination. Various panchnamas
were conducted. The Appellant was arrested on 8.1.2014 at 3.00
p.m.. His clothes and the murder weapon i.e. a knife was recovered
at his instance. At the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-
sheet was filed. According to the prosecution case, the deceased
belonged to a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the provisions of the
Atrocities Act were invoked. The case was tried before the Special
3 of 18
:4: 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
Judge.
5. During trial, the prosecution examined the daughter of
the deceased who was the eye witness, their neighbour, the
panchas, the medical officers and the investigating officers. The
defence of the Appellant was of total denial. The prosecution did
not produce the caste certificate of the deceased on record. The
evidence regarding the allegations under the Maharashtra Police
Act and the Indian Arms Act was lacking and, therefore, the
Appellant was acquitted from the charges of commission of the
offence punishable under these three Acts. However, the learned
Judge accepted the evidence of the eye witness, the neighbour, the
panchas and the medical officer. The learned Judge thus convicted
and sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned above.
6. Before the trial commenced, the first informant i.e. the
mother-in-law of the deceased Mahananda had passed away. The
FIR was brought on record through the evidence of the police
officer who had recorded the FIR. The evidence of the sole eye
witness examined by the prosecution i.e. PW-2 Aarti Kerve is the
most important piece of evidence in this case. She was the
daughter of the deceased. She deposed that she was residing with
4 of 18
:5: 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
her mother, grand-mother and younger brother. At the time of her
deposition recorded on 7.11.2017, she was eleven years of age.
That means, she was about seven years of age at the time of the
incident. She was studying in the second standard. She deposed
that the Appellant was residing behind their hut. He used to
occasionally come to their hut asking for kerosene or matchbox. In
the night of 7.1.2014, PW-2 and her brother Ganesh were sleeping
with their mother. Her grand-mother slept in another part of the
hut. The Appellant came in the house. She heard some noise. She
woke up. She saw that the Appellant had stabbed her mother with
an knife on the stomach. She shouted. She tried to save her
mother and fell on her person. The Appellant gave a blow of knife
on PW-2’s shoulder. In the meantime, her younger brother woke up
and tried to push the Appellant. The Appellant gave a blow on
Ganesh’s leg. PW-2’s grand-mother came there but the Appellant
hit her with a stone on the head. She also started shouting. The
Appellant then ran away. He carried away some money belonging
to her mother. The neighbours gathered there and took her mother
to the hospital. She deposed that she could identify the Appellant.
His identity was not challenged.
5 of 18
:6: 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
In the cross-examination, she stated that they were
residing in a chawl and there were other rooms in the vicinity. She
knew the Appellant as he was a neighbour. Her mother was
working. Her father had passed away one year before the incident.
Her mother used to leave in the morning and come back in the
evening. According to her, the deceased was not talking with the
Appellant after the death of PW-2’s father. In her further cross-
examination, she stated that she could not assign any reason as to
why it was not mentioned in her police statement that the
Appellant had come inside the house, that she had woke up after
hearing noise and that he had stabbed her mother with a knife in
the stomach. Her police statement did not mention that Ganesh
woke up and tried to push the Appellant and that the Appellant
gave blow of knife on Ganesh’s leg. It also did not mention that the
Appellant had hit her grand-mother on the head.
These omissions to a certain extent are important.
However, these omissions are not put to the investigating officer
who had recorded her statement. Therefore, these omissions
amounting to contradictions are not proved. In any case, the
learned APP submitted that the police statement did not mention
6 of 18
:7: 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
the details but it specifically mentioned that the Appellant had
assaulted PW-2’s mother. Therefore, her evidence is consistent with
her police statement to the extent that the Appellant had assaulted
her mother with a knife. That is the most crucial aspect of her
deposition.
7. PW-3 Shripat Gite was a neighbour of PW-2 as well as
of the Appellant. He deposed that he knew the deceased, her
mother-in-law, PW-2 and the son of the deceased. They were
residing in the room opposites to his room. The Appellant was
residing behind the room of the deceased. He was residing with
two to three other boys. At around 12.30 a.m. on 8.1.2014 he
heard the shouts of PW-2 and her brother. The mother-in-law
Malkabai also started shouting. PW-3 and others came to see what
had happened. He saw the Appellant coming out from the room of
the deceased and running away. He saw that the deceased was
lying with injuries. There was injury on the shoulder of PW-2.
Malkabai had injury on her head. PW-3 and others took all the
injured to Shivaji Hospital. The deceased Mahananda was taken to
Vashi Municipal Hospital. He deposed that he could identify the
Appellant in the Court. The Appellant’s identity was not challenged
7 of 18
:8: 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
by the defence.
In the cross-examination, he stated that there was a
slum area around their chawl. There was no street light.
Malkabai’s son had committed suicide. At the time of incident, he
heard the shouts and, therefore, he had come out. He denied the
suggestion that he was deposing at the instance of Malkabai. There
are certain omissions pointed out to him from his police statement.
According to him, he had stated before the police that he had seen
the Appellant running away and that PW-2 and her brother had
suffered injuries. But, he could not explain why these facts were
not mentioned in his police statement. These important omissions
from his police statement were not put to the investigating officer
who had recorded his statement and, therefore, these omissions are
not proved. The investigating officer was not asked anything about
his statement recorded by the investigating agency.
8. PW-1 Sudhir Hivrale was a pancha for spot
panchnama. He deposed that he was called at about 4.00 p.m. on
8.1.2014 to the spot of incident. Malkabai showed the spot. She
also showed the room of the Appellant. There were blood stains in
both the rooms i.e. the room of the deceased and the room of the
8 of 18
:9: 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
Appellant. Various articles viz. the blood stained earth, the blood
mixed water from a bottle, blood stained gunny bag, footwear, a
stone, bed-sheet etc. were seized. He identified those articles in
the Court. The spot panchnama was produced on record at Exhibit-
22.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that there were
other chawls and houses near the spot.
9. PW-7 Mahadev Nagile was a pancha in whose presence
the Appellant showed willingness to show the place where he had
concealed the weapon and his clothes. He was called by the police
officers on 10.1.2014. The Appellant was present in the police
station. He stated before this witness that he was willing to show
the place where he had concealed the knife and his clothes. His
statement was recorded in the memorandum panchnama which is
produced on record at Exhibit-54. The Appellant then led the
panchas and the police to his house and produced his clothes
hidden under a heap of bricks. The clothes were blood stained. He
then led them to the house of one Vilas Gaud and told them that
he had thrown the knife on the roof of the house. He climbed on
the roof and took out a knife. His clothes and the knife were
9 of 18
: 10 : 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
seized. The panchnama is produced on record at Exhibit-55.
10. In connection with the recovery of knife, the
prosecution examined PW-8 Vilas Gaud. The Appellant had thrown
the knife on the roof of PW-8’s house. He deposed that the
deceased was residing near the house with her mother-in-law and
children. The Appellant was residing near his house and was
working as a Cleaner. He came to know about the incident. On
10.1.2014, the police had come to his house with the Appellant.
He deposed that the Appellant climbed the roof of his house and
took out the knife. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the
defence. Therefore, the recovery evidence remained unchallenged.
11. PW-4 Dr. Bhushan Jain had conducted the postmortem
examination on the dead body. She had received the following
injuries:
1] Chopped wound over right side of the neck up to face along with cut
fracture of angle of the mandible of size 11 x 2.5 c.m. along with 1.5
c.m. failing medically, reddish. Infilteration staining of blood seen at
the fractural margins.
2] Two linear incised wounds seen over right side of the neck posteriorly
of length 3 c.m. each, reddish, situated parallel to each other near root
of the neck.
3] Linear incised wound over back extending from left scapular region
10 of 18
: 11 : 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
up to right back of length 14 c.m. reddish, obliquely placed.
4] Linear incised wound over right arm posteriorly of length 4 c.m.
reddish.
5] Stab injury over left chest axillary region 5 x 4 c.m. cavity deep along
with 3 x 2 c.m. tailing on arm, muscle deep, reddish.
On dissection passes through 2nd intercostal space
directing obliquely downwards medially piercs plura, upper lobe and
exit through lower lobe posteriorly, tapering at the end cavity contains
1000 cc bllod, track haemorrhagic.
6] Incised wound over left forearm medially 3 x 1.5 c.m. bone deep,
reddish.
7] Linear incised wound over left forearm 2 c.m. below above injury of
length 2.5 c.m., reddish.
8] Incised wound over left forearm 2 c.m. below above injury of size 1.5
x 0.3 c.m. skin deep, reddish.
9] Stab injury over left abdomen laterally below thoracic cage of size 4 x
2 c.m. cavity deep along with 7 c.m. tailing on upper side, reddish.
On dissection injury had two tracks
A] Passing through skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscles, vessels,
peritoneum directing obliquely downwards medially up to paraspinous
muscles haemorrhagic.
B] Passing through subcutaneous tissue directing obliquely downwards,
tapering at the end and exited as a injury No.10.
10] Stab injury over left abdomen above level of inguinal line of size 1.5 x
0.7 c.m. reddish in colour.
Distance between injury No. 9 and injury No.10 is 18 c.m.
11] Stab injury over left thigh medially over middle (1/3) region 4 x 2 c.m.
reddish.
On dissection track passes through subcutaneous tissue
11 of 18
: 12 : 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
directing obliquely upwards laterally, papering at the end and exited as
a injury No. 12.
12] Stab injury over left thigh anteriorly below inguinal line of size 1.5 x
0.7 c.m. reddish.
Distance between injury No. 11 and 12 is 18 c.m.”
12. The cause of death was mentioned as hemorrhagic
shock due to multiple stab injuries. The postmortem report is
produced on record at Exhibit-32.
13. PW-9 Dr. Dinesh Shendarkar had examined the three
injured i.e. PW-2, her brother Ganesh and her grand-mother
Malkabai. He produced their medical certificates on record at
Exhibits-60, 61 and 62. PW-2 had one CLW on the left shoulder of
the size 15 x 3 x 3 cm. He described it as grievous hurt. Ganesh
had suffered CLW of the size 3 x 2 x 2 cm on his left leg. Malkabai
had suffered CLW over left eye-brow of the size 3 x 2 x 2 cm.
14. PW-5 Police Constable Ashok Salve deposed about the
notification published by the Commissioner of police, Navi Mumbai
for the period 29.12.2013 to 12.1.2014 prohibiting carrying of
weapons. He had displayed this notification at a public place.
15. PW-6 API Bile had conducted the initial part of the
investigation. He was on duty as PSO at Rabale Police Station. He
12 of 18
: 13 : 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
received a call from the control room regarding the incident. He
went to the spot. He sent the injured to the hospital. He recorded
the statement of Malkabai. He produced the FIR lodged by him at
Exhibit-43 before the trial Court. He stated that Malkabai had
passed away. As a part of the investigation, he supervised the
inquest panchnama and the spot panchnama. He had seized the
articles. Further investigation was carried out by PI Rajendra
Pawar.
In the cross-examination, he stated that he had received
the information at about 1.00 to 1.15 a.m. He denied the
suggestion that Malkabai was taken to the hospital before they had
reached the spot. He had not collected the information as to why
Malkabai’s son i.e. the husband of the deceased had committed
suicide in the past.
16. PW-10 P.I. Rajendra Pawar was the investigating officer.
He seized the clothes of the injured. He recorded the statements of
witnesses including the supplementary statement of Malkabai. He
arrested the accused on 8.1.2014 and prepared the arrest
panchnama. He supervised recovery of knife and clothes of the
accused-Appellant. He sent the muddemal property for chemical
13 of 18
: 14 : 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
analysis. The investigation was transferred to ACP, Vashi Division.
In the crosse-examination, he admitted that the original caste
certificate of the deceased was not produced on record.
17. Apart from this ocular evidence, the prosecution
produced the C.A. report at Exhibit-77. It shows that there were
blood stains on the knife, but the blood group was inconclusive.
There was blood of Groups B and AB on the clothes of the
Appellant. The blood group found on the clothes of the deceased
was of Group B, and that on the clothes of the injured was of
Group AB.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT :
18. Learned counsel for the Appellant made the following
submissions :
i. The Appellant is falsely implicated. The prosecution case
relied only on the evidence of PW-2. She was a child witness.
Her evidence is not reliable. She was tutored. She had
named the Appellant at the instance of her grand-mother
Malkabai. But since Malkabai was not available for trial, the
defence was deprived of cross-examining Malkabai.
ii. The prosecution has failed to bring any motive on record as
14 of 18
: 15 : 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
to why the Appellant would commit the murder of the
deceased. No evidence is shown that they had any past
history of either dispute or of any other relationship.
iii. The evidence of the main witness is full of material
omissions.
iv. The knife recovered at the instance of the Appellant did not
show the blood group of the deceased.
v. It was improbable that the neighbours would have allowed
the Appellant to run away from the spot if they had seen him
near the house of the deceased after the incident.
vi. She, therefore, submitted that the Appellant deserves to be
acquitted.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED APP ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT – STATE :
19. Learned APP on the other hand relied on the evidence
of PW-2. She submitted that though PW-2 was a child witness, her
evidence is reliable. She was an eye witness. She had seen the
entire incident. There is no scope to disbelieve her evidence. She is
supported by the evidence of PW-3 who was a neighbour. Apart
from that, her presence at the spot is also established by her
15 of 18
: 16 : 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
medical certificate. Thus, she is an injured eye witness. Her
evidence is further supported by the medical evidence in respect of
injuries suffered by Malkabai and PW-2’s brother Ganesh. There
are other corroborative pieces of evidence i.e. the knife recovered
at the instance of the Appellant and blood stained clothes of the
Appellant which showed presence of blood of the deceased and the
injured on his clothes.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION :
20. We have considered these submissions. As rightly
submitted by both the learned counsel, the prosecution case heavily
relied on the evidence of PW-2. She was a child witness and,
therefore, we have considered her evidence very carefully. She was
sleeping with her mother and brother. Her presence in the house
was natural. She has described the incident in detail. It is obvious
that because of the noise and shouts of her mother she woke up
and saw the entire incident. Her presence at the spot at the time of
the incident was further established by the medical evidence in
respect of the injury suffered by her. It was a grievous injury on the
shoulder. She had described the injuries suffered by her grand-
mother and brother. Those injuries are also supported by the
16 of 18
: 17 : 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
medical evidence. Though there are some omissions from her
police statement; firstly, no questions were asked about the
omissions to the investigating officer; and secondly, the omission
was in respect of the details but not in respect of the actual assault
committed by the Appellant on the deceased. Therefore, based on
her evidence alone the prosecution has proved its case.
21. Apart from her evidence, there are other corroborative
circumstances. The knife was recovered at the instance of the
Appellant. The recovery is supported not only by the panchas but
by PW-8 as well. The knife was thrown by the Appellant and only
he knew where he had thrown it. Therefore, the recovery of
weapon is directly connected to the Appellant. The clothes were
found from his house at his instance as he had showed the place
himself, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, these are the additional
circumstances.
22. The medical evidence in respect of the postmortem
examination establishes the cruel manner in which the Appellant
had assaulted the deceased. Even PW-3 had seen him running
away from the spot. There are certain omissions in his evidence.
These omissions were not put to the investigating officer.
17 of 18
: 18 : 901--apeal-809-24-J.odt
Therefore, his evidence is also incriminating against the Appellant.
23. The Appellant was acquitted from the charges of
offences under the Atrocities Act because the prosecution failed to
prove the caste of the deceased. There was no other evidence in
that behalf. Similarly, the prosecution did not produce the reliable
evidence in respect of commission of the offences punishable under
the Maharashtra Police Act and the Arms Act. The learned Judge
has rightly acquitted the Appellant from those charges.
24. However, as mentioned earlier the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as far as assault on the
deceased as well as on PW-2 and the other two family members are
concerned. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. The
Appeal is dismissed. With dismissal of the Appeal, the connected
Application is also disposed of.
( ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE Date:
2026.06.23
13:54:42
+0530
18 of 18
Checking your session…