Holding

The High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s acquittal and convicting the appellant of murder under s.302 IPC, as the evidence against him was credible and the trial court’s rejection of related witnesses was erroneous.

Summary

Mahesh was accused of murdering his former lover Sunita and injuring her husband Sanjay and mother‑in‑law Nirmalabai. The trial court acquitted him, disbelieving the testimony of several relatives who were eye‑witnesses, on the ground that they were interested and lacked independent corroboration. The State appealed under s.378 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entitled to re‑appreciate the evidence, that the relationship of witnesses does not per se affect their credibility, and that the injured eye‑witnesses’ testimony was cogent, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapons. Consequently, the High Court’s conviction of Mahesh for murder under s.302 IPC was upheld, while the acquittals on the other charges were left untouched. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The scope of appellate power under s.378 CrPC to set aside an acquittal.
Whether testimony of relatives (interested witnesses) can be relied upon without independent corroboration.
The evidentiary impact of non‑examination of independent witnesses.
The relevance of unexplained injuries on the accused and blood‑stain evidence.
The sufficiency of the prosecution’s case to sustain conviction under s.302 IPC.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25, s. 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 164, s. 378, s. 379
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 324
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970s. 2(A)

Subjects

appeal against acquittalwitness credibilityinterested witnessesmurderIPC 302evidentiary valuehigh court jurisdictioncriminal procedure

Judgment

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 158

A MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2007)
APRIL 10, 2008
B
(P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.)
~ .
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - High Court reversing
c the judgment of acquittal passed by trial court and convicting
the accused uls 302 /PC - Held: On facts of the case,
interference by High Court was whol/y justified and warranted
- Findings recorded by High Court do not suffer from any
manifest error or improper and misappreciation of evidence
D on record.
Penal Code, 1860:
.., '
s. 302 - Accused stabbing to death his former beloved in
presence of her husband and mother and other eye-witness -
E A/so causing injuries to husband and mother of deceased -
Trial Court acquitting the accused disbelieving the injured and
other eye-witnesses for being related witnesses as a/so on the
ground that no independent witness was examined -Acquittal
set aside and accused convicted by High Court - Held: Mere
F relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness - In
such cases Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse
evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible - Further,
Testimony of witnesses who received injuries in the
occurrence, if found trustworthy, cannot be discarded merely
G for non-examination of independent witnesses - High Court
on reappraisal and reassessment of entire evidence on record
has rightly held the accused gwlty u/s 302 /PC and sentenced
him to imprisonment for life - Evidence - Testimony of related
witnesses and hostile witnesses - Evidentiary value of - Non- "~
H 158
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 159
MAHARASHTRA

examination of independent witnesses - Effect of. A
The accused-appellant was prosecuted for murder
of 'S', the wife of P.W.8, and causing injuries to P.W.8 and
his mother-in-law,'N'. According to the prosecution case,
the accused was in love with the deceased prior to her
marriage with P.W.8. A few days prior to the marriage, the
·s
accused went to the house of P.W.8 and disclosed the
fact to him and threatened him in presence of his brother
(P.W.7) with dire consequences if he married 'S'. However,
the marriage of 'S' with P.W.8 took place. On the day of the
incident P.W.8 and 'S' were at the house of his mother-in- C
law 'N'. In the evening around 5.00 or 5.30 all the three
along with the nephew (PW.16) and niece (PW 4) of 'S'
went for evening walk towards the river side. While
returning, they saw the accused and PW5 going on a
motor cycle towards the river bridge. When 'N' and party D
reached near her house, P.W.8 heard a gunshot fired at
,r y him from behind and he fell down. He saw the accused
keeping the gun aside, rushing towards his wife and
stabbing her on head, neck and back as a result of which ·
she collapsed. When 'N' tried to intervene, the accused E
inflicted knife blows on her also. The accused, noticing
the people gathering at the scene of occurrence, fled away.
P.W.1, a medical practitioner, whose dispensary was
nearby reached the spot and took all the three injured to
the Government Hospital where wife of P.W.8 died at about F
7.30 p.m. the same day. P.W.8 and 'N' were referred to the
Medical College. PWs 4 and 16 went to the house of PW.6,
the grandfather of 'S', and narrated the incident to him.
PW.6 went to the scene of occurrence and on coming to
know that the injured had been taken to the hospital, G
rushed to the hospital where he saw the victims lying
injured and 'S' as unconscious. The accused was arrested
the same day and at his instance weapons of the crime, a
gun and a knife, were stated to have been recovered.
The trial Court did not believe the prosecution case H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A and acquitted the accused of all the charges. On appeal
by the State, the High Court found that 'N' had died during
the pendency of the trial and she could not be examined
as a witness. Charges against the accused u/s.324 for
causing knife injuries to 'N' and u/s.307 for causing
B gunshot injuries to P.W.8 were not proved and, therefore,
he was acquitted of both the charges. However, the High
Court found the charge of murder of 'S' to ·have been
proved against the accused and convicted and sentenced
him u/s.302 IPC.
C In the instant appeal filed by the accused it was
contended for the appellant that the High Court
committed an error in interfering with the order of acquittal
passed by the trial court merely because another view
could have been taken; that the High Court failed to
D appreciate the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court
that the eye-witnesses were interested witnesses as they
were related to the deceased and their evidence was not
" '
corroborated by any independent witness; that the
'Panch' witnesses did not support the prosecution case.
E It was also contended that there were several
discrepancies in the prosecution case and, therefore,
conviction of the appellant u/s.302 was unsustainable.
On the question: whether the High Court in exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction exceeded its limitations in an
F appeal against acquittal,
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The substance of occurrence of incident
as stated by the prosecution is not disputed. The Trial
G Judge has disbelieved the evidence of PWs 8, 4, 16 and
6, merely on the grounds that they are close relati11es of
the deceased and therefore, interested witnesses; and
that no other independent witnesses who were present
at the scene of occurrence, had been examined by the
H prosecution and there was no independent corroboration
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 161
MAHARASHTRA
,.".
to the eye-witness account of the interested witnesses. A
As has been held by this Court,-mere relationship is not a
factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often
than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit
and make allegations against an innocent person.
Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is B
t ,.. made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful
approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is
cogent and credible. [para 27, 37 and 38] [182-E; 189-B-E]
Salim Sahab vs. State of M.P (2007) 1 SCC 699; Masalti
vs. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202; State of Punjab vs. Jagir c
Singh (1974) 3 sec 277 and Gangadhar Behera VS. State of
Orissa (2002) 8 sec 381 - relied on.
2.1. PW.8, the injured witness, has categorically
narrated the incident. This witness is not a stranger to
D
the appellant and he has clearly identified the appellant
... :>
as an assailant. His evidence has not been shattered or
discredited by the defence in spite of searching cross-
examination. He is a natural witness being an injured
person and his evidence is cogent, satisfactory and
consistent which has been properly re-appreciated and E
accepted by the High Court holding the appellant an
assailant of the murder of the deceased. PW.4 has fully
corroborated the testimony of PW.8. On a scrutiny of the
evidence of this witness it is found that in spite of lengthy
cross-examination by the defence, her testimony could F
.. ,\.
not be impeached in regard to the manner in which the
appellant had assaulted the deceased with knife. She is a
truthful witness and has given positive, satisfactory and
consistent account of the incident. The evidence of this
witness is free from any doubt and cannot be disbelieved G
or discarded simply because she is a relative of deceased.
PW.16 has corroborated the testimony of PWs 8 and 4 in
/ "' its entirety. The evidence of this witness was consistent
and free from embellishment. Nothing has been elicited
H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A in the cross-examination to discredit his testimony. P.W.6
corroborated the testimony of PWs-4 and 16 who had
narrated the entire incident to him naming the appellant
the author of the serious offence of murder of 'S'. [para
28, 31) [183-D-E-F; 184-G, 185-A, B, D, E]
B 2.2. PW-8 and his brother PW-7 deposed that the
appellant had extended threats to PW-8 to get ready for - ;

facing dire consequences if he married 'S' as the appellant
was in love with her since their school days. Both clearly
and unambiguously deposed in regard to the motive of
C the appellant. The evidence of these witnesses on this
aspect has remained intact and untouched from the
defence side. [para 42, 44) [192-G, H; 194-F]
2.3 The conduct of PWs-4 and 16, the eye-witnesses,
in not accompanying the injured persons to the hospital
0
and not reporting the incident to the Police cannot be
viewed with suspicion. At the time of the occurrence PW- < L
4 was about 19 years of age whereas PW-16 was hardly
14 years of age. Both these witnesses on noticing the
appellant giving repeated knife blows on the neck, head
E and back of the deceased and inflicting severe injuries to
PW-8 and 'N', immediately rushed to the house of PW-6
and promptly reported the entire incident to him. The
conduct of these two children, in these circumstances,
cannot said to be unnatural. These witnesses have
F withstood the cross-examination with courage and ....
boldness and their testimony could not be impeached by
the defence in regard to the genesis of the incident. The
eye-witnesses have no animus against the appellant to
implicate him in a false case and leaving the real assailant
G from the clutches of law. In the circumstances, no fault
can be found in regard to the conduct of these witnesses.
[Para 43) [193-A, B, D-G]
Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (1989) Supp. (2) SCC
21 - distinguished.
H
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 163
MAHARASHTRA
.,J, 2.4 It is well settled that merely because the A
witnesses examined by the prosecution are relatives of
the victim, that fact by itself will not be sufficient to discard
and discredit the evidence of the relative witnesses, if
otherwise they are found to be truthful witnesses. The rule
of caution is that the evidence of relative witnesses has B
to be reliable evidence which has to be accepted after deep
t -
and thorough scrutiny. In the instant case, PWs-4, 6, 8 and
16 have consistently supported the prosecution case in
their statements made before the Police as well as in
deposition before the trial court. There is no cogent and c
valid reason to discard and discredit their testimony, more
so when their evidence is corroborated by medical
evidence and other important piece of evidence appearing
on record. [para 39, 40] [190-D, E, F, G]
3.1. As regards the prosecution witnesses turning D
,
.
hostile, P.W.1, is a medical practitioner of the same village .
He knew deceased 'S', her mother 'N' and the appellant.
His dispensary is at about 50 feet from the ,Jlace of
occurrence. He lodged the report [Ext. 28] of the incident.
He stated that on hearing th:? shouts of the deceased, he E
rushed to the spot of incident and noticed her lying with
bleeding injuries on the road side he also spotted 'N' and
PW 8 lying on the ground in an injured condition. He took
all the three injured in a rickshaw to the Government
Hospital, where he assisted the Medical Officer in giving F
....._ medical treatment to the injured persons. At about 7.30 or
8.00 p.m. as per his version, 'S' died in the hospital
whereas 'N' and PW 8 were sent for better medical
treatment to Medical College Hospital. He stated that he
reported the entire incident to the Police in the Police
G
Station and made a report (Ext. 28) which was signed by
him. This witness, no doubt, has turned hostile to the
prosecution and in the cross-examination denied having
made portion marked 'A' of his statement to the Police that
he saw the appellant near the place of incident. However,
H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A testimony of this witness corroborates the testimony of
injured PW-8 and other non-injured eye-witnesses to the
extent that deceased, her mother and PW.8 were lying with
bleeding injuries at the scene of occurrence on the day
of incident. [para 32] [186-C, D, E, F, G; 187-A]
B 3.2. PW-1 has chosen not to corroborate his earlier
statement made in the complaint and recorded during - i

investigation. He has tried to conceal the material truth
from the Court with a sole purpose of shielding and
protecting the appellant for reasons best known to the
C witness. PW-2 and PW-3 have also followed the same
trend which PW-1 had adopted. In their earlier statements
made to the Police they implicated the appellant as an
assailant, but later on they resiled from their statements.
Similarly, PW-15 is the resident of the village and he is.
D acquainted with the appellant. In his cross-examination,
he admitted that during investigation of the case the Police
had recorded his statement and later on Special Judicial
Magistrate also recorded his statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. along with four or five more witnesses. He has
E denied having made statement to the Special Judicial
Magistrate to the extent that on the day of incident he saw
the appellant armed with a gun and giving knife blows
on the person of 'S' and her mother 'N'. [para 33,34 and
35) [187-8, C, D, E, F, G: 188-A, 8, CJ
F 3.3 The Investigating Officer (PW 18) and the Special
Judicial Magistrate (PW 17) both have categorically stated
that they had correctly recorded the statements of PWs
1, 2, 3 and 15 under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and Section 164,
Cr.P.C. respectively. The testimony of the Investigating
G Officer and Special Judicial Magistrate in no
circumstances and for no good reason could be
disbelieved and discredited and their evidence has to be
accepted in its entirety without any hesitation. Merely
because PWs 1, 2, 3 and 15 did not support the
H prosecution case when they were examined in the Court,
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 165
MAHARASHTRA

that would not, in the circumstances, lead to the A
conclusion that the appellant was innocent. [Para 36] (188-
F, G; 189-A]
4.1 As regards non-examination of independent
witnesses who probably witnessed the occurrence on the
road side, suffice it to say that testimony of PW-8, an eye- B
witness, who received injuries in the occurrence, if found
to be trustworthy, cannot be discarded merely for non-
examination of the independent witnesses. It is well-
settled that in such cases many a times, persons are not
inclined to became witnesses for variety of reasons. The C
High Court has rightly held that the reasons given by the
trial Judge for discarding and disbelieving the testimony
of PWs-4, 5, 6 and 8 were wholly unreasonable, untenable
and perverse. [para 39] [190-A, B, C] ·
4.2 The testimony of the eye-witnesses including the D
injured eye-witness PW-8 finds complete corroboration
from the medical evidence in regard to the severe injuries
sustained by deceased at the hands of the appellant with
knife (Art. 20), the weapon of offence used in the
commission of the crime. [para 42] [192-F, G] E
5.1 So far as the arrest of the accused is concerned,
he was arrested by the Investigating Officer in the
presence of PW-9 and PW-13. Simply because PW 13 in
the past had also appeared as Panch witness in the Court,
he cannot be branded as habitual Panch witness nor earl F
it be said that in the instant case he blindly signed the
Panchnama. PW-9 is a Legal Practitioner and he has fully
supported preparation of the arrest panchnama of the
appellant. The arrest Panchnama (Ext. 41) would reveal
that stains of blood were noticed at the shirt of the G
accused when he was arrested. It also finds mentioned
in the Panchnama that the appellant had a cut injury on
his right little finger and blood was oozing out of the said
injury. This has been corroborated by the medical report
of the doctor (PW 10). The appellant has not explained H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A the existfrnce of cut injury on his right little finger.
[Para 45] [195-D, F, G; 196-A, B]
5.2 In the instant case, no ground is made out to
disbelieve and discard the evidence of PWs-4, 8 and 16,
who are injured and non-injured eye-witnesses and
8 whose evidence is corroborated by other oral and
documentary evidence including the medical evidence.
Therefore, non-explanation of simple injury on little finger
of the right hand of the appellant by the prosecution is
insignificant in the teeth of the overwhelming, cogent,
C consistent and trustworthy evidence appearing on record
against the appellant for holding him guilty of the
commission of the offence. [para 46] [197.-D, E, F]
Krishan & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 459 -
relied on.
0
Raghu Nath v. State of Harnaya & Anr. (2003) 1 SCC
398 - held inapplicable.
7. Simply because there are some minor
discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses which are of
E no consequence to the true genesis of the case and that
some evidence has not been adduced by the prosecution,
though might have been available, the same would not
be sufficient grounds to hold that the appellant has been
booked in a false case. There is nothing on record brought
F by the appellant to show that it was quite possible that
the witnesses would spare the real culprit and implicate
him in a false case. On the basis of the entire evidence
elaborately discussed by the High Court, it cannot be held
that the appellant, has been framed on suspicion. [para
G 48) [198-E, F, G]
8.1 The High Court, on reappraisal and reassessment
of the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion
that immediately after the occurrence a report came to be
H lodged to the Police Station against the appellant who has
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 167
MAHARASHTRA
,;...
been identified by PW-8, an injured eye-witness, and other A
non-injured eye-witnesses and further that the appellant
had strong motive to commit murder of the deceased with
malice towards PW-8-her husband, as well as her
deceased mother. [para 48) [198-C, D, E]
8.2 The interference made in the instant case by the B
~ .--+-
High Court with the order of acquittal passed by the trial
Court was wholly justified and warranted. The findings
recorded by the High Court do not suffer from any manifest
error or improper and misappreciation of evidence on
record. The High Court has rightly held that the appellant c
is the real culprit and guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC. [para 49] [199-A, B]
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180;
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2
D
SCC 793; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9
SCC 225; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC
484; State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr (2007) 3 SCC
755; Prandas v. State AIR 1954 SC 36; Chandrappa v. State
of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 and Girja Prasad (Dead) by
Lrs. V State of M. P. (2007) 7 sec 625 - relied on. E

Tota Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529;
Surajpa/ Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 52 and Aher Raja Khima ·
v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217 - referred to.
.._,,,_ Shea Swarup v. R. Emperor (1933-34) 61 IA 398 : AIR F
1934 PC 227 (2) - referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 545 of 2007.
From the final Judgment and order dated 9/3/2007 of the G
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
.. Crl. A. No. 198/1990
Sushil Kumar, Anmol Thakral and Meenakshi Kumar and
Aditya Kumar (for Chander Shekhar Ashri) for the Appellant.
H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.F\

A Dr. Rajeev Masodkar (for Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure) for
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. The appellant has
B filed this appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.") read with Section 2(A) of - 1
the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 read with Order 21 Rules XII to XXIX of
the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, against the judgment and order
c dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. By the
judgment under challenge, the High Court has partly set aside
the judgment dated 25.01.1990 of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhandara, passed in Sessions Trial No.44/
D 88 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code [for short 'IPC'] and sentencing him to imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause to suffer
further six months' R.I. The appellant, however, has been
acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and
324 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
E
2. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as
follows:-
The appellant-Mahesh and one Sunita were residents of
Bastarwari Ward, Paoni, Tehsil Paoni, District Bhandara. It was
F alleged that they developed love-affair with each other when
they were studying in the school. The prosecution case was that
the marriage of Sunita was arranged with Sanjay, a resident of
Nagpur. Before the marriage of Sunita could take place with
Sanjay, the appellant had gone to the house of Sanjay and
G disclosed the fact of his past love-affair with Sunita. He also
threatened Sanjay to face with dire consequences if he would
marry with Sunita. Sanjay in the presence of his brother Manik
(PW-7) told the appellant that as the" Sakshagandha" Ceremony
.
had already taken place, he was left with no other option except
H to marry with Sunita. It was on 12.02.1988 when the marriage
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 169
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

between Sunita and Sanjay took place at Nagpur. On A
27.03.1988, Sanjay and his wife Sunita both had gone to the
house of Nirmalabai for inviting the latter to attend the marriage
of the niece of Sanjay scheduled to take place.at ...,_ Nagpur. They
had stayed for a night at the house of Nirmalabai. On the next
day, i.e. 28.03.1988, Nirmalabai, Sanjay (PW-8), his wife Sunita, B
I -- Archana (PW-4) - niece of Sunita and Rupesh (PW-16), son of
the maternal uncle of Sunita, had gone towards the bridge side
of Wainganga River for evening walk. It was alleged that around
5.00 or 5.30 in the evening, the appellant along with his friend
Rajesh (PW-5) was seen by the above-said persons going on c
a motorcycle to Wainganga River bridge side. The appellant on
seeing Sanjay, his wife Sunita, Nirmalabai, PWs-Archana and
Rupesh at the site of the river, allegedly uttered "Safi Sunita
Yevdha Prem Asun Aaj Ekda Sudha Mazyakade Pahile Nahl'
to PW-Rajesh. The prosecution alleged that on the same day,
D
the appellant had kept a gun and one bag at the house of
.... Laxmibai (PW-2) in the presence of Bilkish Begum (PW-3), a
neighbour of PW-2 on the pretext that he would collect these
articles in the evening for hunting purpose. The appellant and
PW-Rajesh returned to their respective houses in the evening.
After some time, the appellant armed with a gun and knife C'1me E
back to the place of incident and fire shot in the back of Sanjay,
who, as a result of bleeding injury, uttered 'Are Bapre'and then
laid on the road side. Sunita and Nirmalabai both tried to extend
help to injured Sanjay, but the appellant came near them, pulled
Sunita's hair and stabbed her on vital parts of head, neck and F
>·"'.
back. Sunita collapsed on receipt of severe injuries. Nirmalabai
tried to save her daughter Sunita, but the appellant struck knife
blows to Nirmalabai also. The appellant, on seeing the gathering
of people at the scene of occurrence, ran away leaving all the
three injured persons on the spot. G

3. Prakash (PW-1 ), a private Medical Practitioner, who
... lived nearby the place of occurrence, on hearing shouting of the
people, went to the spot. He spotted Sunita lying with bleeding
injuries on the road side. He also spotted Nirmalabai and one
H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A man lying in injured condition at a little distance away from Sunita
PW-Prakash lifted Sanjay, Sunita and Nirmalabai into a
rickshaw and took them to the Government Hospital, Paoni,
where they were admitted by Dr. Laxman (PW-10), Medical
Officer. Sunita could not survive and succumbed to the injuries
B in the evening around 7.15 p.m. Dr. Laxman sent a memo to the
Police Station, Paoni, regarding admission of the injured ~1

persons. PW-Sanjay and Nirmalabai were transferred to Medical
College, Nagpur, at about 7.45 p.m. for proper medical
treatment.
c 4. PW-Prakash at about 7.30 p.m. lodged a written
complaint (Ext. 28) at Paoni Police Station, on the basis of which
First Information Report bearing Crime No.34/1988 (Ext. 29)
was registered by PSI Dhimole (PW-18) under Sections 302
and 307 of the IPC. PW-Dhimole started investigation. He tried
D to get the dying declaration of Sunita and statements of injured
Sanjay and Nirmalabai recorded, but at the relevant time he
could not get the services of any Executive Magistrate readily
available for the purpose. The Investigating Officer conducted
inquest on the dead body of Sunita. He arrested the appellant
E on the same day at about 7.30 p.m. The appellant allegedly
made a disclosure statement to the Investigating Officer
expressing his willingness to point out the place where a gun
and one knife were concealed by him. The appellant took the
Police and the Panch witnesses, namely, Vithoba Khobragade
F (PW-9), a Legal Practitioner, and Harihar Barsagade (PW-13)
to his house and got the weapons of offence recovered y-

therefrom. The articles were seized by the Investigating Officer
vide Panchnama (Ext. 43).
5. Dr. Laxman conducted the post mortem examination
G on the dead body of the deceased Sunita and recorded the
following injuries in Post Mortem Report (Ext. 62):-
1) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm over left forehead.
.
2) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm inter-scapular region to
H right side.
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A size of each injury was 1 cm x 1 cm edges of all the
said injuries were inverted. Black right all around the
injuries would of exit seen.

7. On examination of Nirmalabai, Dr. Laxman noticed the
following injuries on her person:-
B
a. Incised wound/stab over left scapular region 2.5 cm - I

x 1cm bleeding was present.

b. Incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm over face right side lateral
to lateral angle of eye.
c
c. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm over right hand above
little finger.

d. Incised wound over right elbow joint 2.5 cm x 1 cm
Movements frees.
D
8. The Investigating Officer collected the post mortem
report (Ext. 62) of Sunita, her Injury Certificate (Ext. 54), Injury
Certificate of PW-Sanjay (Ext. 55) and Injury Certificate of PW-
Nirmalabai (Ext. 56) respectively. At the Medical College
Hospital at Nagpur, some pellets of gun fire were taken out of
E
the body of PW-Sanjay. The Investigating Officer collected
samples of nails of the appellant in the presence of Panch
witnesses and the same were sent to the Chemical Analyser.

9. After completion of the in'1estigation and after receipt of
F the post mortem report and the Injury Certificates of deceased ,,..
Sunita, PW-Sanjay and Nirmalabai and also the Chemical
Analyser's Reports (Ext. 99, Ext. 100 and Ext. 102) and Report
of Ballistic Expert (Ext. 101 ). PW-Dhimole submitted charge
sheet against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial
G Magistrate, Bhandara. The Chief Judicial Magistrate committed
the trial of the appellant to the Court of Sessions, Bhandara, as
the offences framed in the charge sheet were exclusively triable
by the Court of Sessions.
..
10. The trial of the appellant was conducted by the learned
H Additional Sessions Judge, who framed charges against the
MAHESH S/0.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 173
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
~ ... appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of A
the IPC and for the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act.
11. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses
in support of its case. In the statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., the appellant has denied his involvement in the crime. B
) .... He pleaded that the prosecution witnesses are inimical towards
him. He admitted that on the day of incident at about 5.00 to
5.30 p.m., he along with PW-Rajesh had gone on a motorcycle
towards river side for evening walk and thereafter they went to
a small hillock in the vicinity and stayed there for about 1 Yi c
hours. They kept motorcycle near one Hotel, where they had
taken tea and when they were walking on a small hill, they heard
sound <;>lblasting of cracker and thereafter they returned to their
respective houses. The appellant also stated that when he came
to his house, some people told that murder had taken place. D
. The defence of the appellant was that he was arrested on
'f
suspicion by the Police on account of old quarrel with the
grandfather of deceased Sunita and he pleaded innocence.
12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has
disbelieved the testimony of the injured witnesses inter alia on E
the grounds: (a) they are close relatives and also interested
witnesses besides they being untrustworthy because their
evidence did not find corroboration from any independent
witnesses tho11gh many people were present at the scene of
occurrence, yet none of them was examined by the prosecution, F
.__.
(b) some of the important witnesses have turned hostile to the
pros·ecution and (c) the recovery of weapons of offence has not
been supported by the panch witnesses and, therefore,
recorded the judgment of acquittal of the appellant. Being
aggrieved, the State of Maharashtra preferred Criminal Appeal G
No.198/90.in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
... Bench. The Division Bench of the High Court scrutinized and
reappraised the entire oral and documentary evidence on
record and has come to the conclusion that the learned Trial
Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

"1
A therefore, the judgment was set aside and as a result thereof,
the appellant has been held guilty for the offence of murder of
Sunita. The record shows that during the pendency of the trial,
Nirmalabai had died and, therefore, she could not be examined
as a witness and injuries sustained by her though sought to be
B proved through PW-Dr. Laxman, yet the High Court has noticed
that th1are was no evidence on record to prove the period of .._ '
hospitalization of Nirmalabai and the nature of medical treatment
given to her by the doctor of Medical College at Nagpur. In the
circumstances, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge
c under Section 324 of IPC for causing injuries to Nirmalabai. As
regards the gunshot injuries caused to PW-Sanjay by the
appellant, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has not established that pellets extracted out of the
body of PW-Sanjay were corresponding to the pellets allegedly
fired by the appellant from the gun recovered from him by the
D
Investigating Officer. No Medical Officer from Medical College,
Nagpur, who medically examined PW-Sanjay, has been
examined by the prosecution to prove injuries received by
Sanjay from fire arm. In these circumstances, the High Court
has given benefit of doubt to the appellant for an offence under
E Section 307 of IPC and consequently, no offence under the Arms
Act as well has been found against the appellant. The appellant
has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence
impos1~d upon him by the High Court for the murder of Sunita.

F 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who
have taken us through the oral evidence of the material witnesses .-~

as well as the documentary evidence appearing on record.
14. Mr. Sushi! Kumar, learned senior Advocate appearing
for the appellant, first contended that the High Court committed
G grave error in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by
the Trial court, only because another view could have been taken
in the matter and the interference of the High Court in the context
of reversal of acquittal is against the well-established principles
laid down by this Court in a series of decisions. In support of
H this submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of
. __.
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

this Court in Tota Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab [(1987) 2
SCC 529] and State of Rajasthan v Raja Ram [(2003) 8 SCC
175

A

180]. We have gone through the above-said decisions. It is not
in dispute that this Court by a series of decisions has laid down
the parameters of appreciation of evidence on record and
jurisdiction and limitations of the Appellate Court while dealing B
,) -- with appeal against an order of acquittal. In the case of Tota
Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), it was held as under:- (SCC
p.532 para 6)

"6 .... The jurisdiction of the appellate court in dealing with
an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed c
by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the
order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower
court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is
vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion
:1 recorded by the court below is such which could not have D
... been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably
1 and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised
as perverse. Where two views are possible on an
appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the
court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the E
appellate court cannot legally interfere with an order of
acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by
the court below on its consideration of the evidence is
erroneous."

, ..... 15. In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (supra), this Court F
held that the golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views
are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. G
The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that
miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice,
which may arise from acquittal of the guilty, is no less than the
conviction of an innocent. Further, it is held that in a case where
admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the Appellate H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused ~·
has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether
any of the au~used committed any offence or not. The principle
to be followed by the Appellate Court considering the appeal
against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only where there
B are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the
impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling .(
reason for interference. These aspects were again highlighted
by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]; Ramesh Babula! Doshi v.
c State of Gujarat [(1996) 9 SCC 225] and Jaswant Singh v. State
of Haryana [(2000) 4 sec 484] and same parameters were
reiterated in the latest judgment of this Court in State of Goa v.
Sanjay Thakran & Anr. ((2007) 3 SCC 755).
16. Though the above principles are well-established, a
D different note was struck in several decisions by this Court. It is,
therefore, appropriate if we consider some more leading .
decisions on the point.

17. In Prandas v. State [AIR 1954 SC 36], the accused
was acquitted by the Trial court. The· ~rovincial Government
E preferred an appeal which was allowed and the accused was
convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323
IPC. The High Court, for convicting the accused, placed reliance
on certain eye-witnesses.

F 18. Upholding the decision of the High Court and following
the proposition of law in Sheo Swarup v R. Emperor (1933- T'

34)61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227 (2), a six-Judge Bench
speaking through Fazl Ali, J. unanimously stated: (Prandas case,
AIR p. 38, para 6)
G "6. It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot
support the view which has been expressed in several
cases that the High Court has no power under Section
417, Criminal Procedure Code, to reverse a judgment of
acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the
H subordinate court has in some way or other misdirected
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE·v. STATE OF 177
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
> 1'
itse/fso as to produce a miscarriage of justice." A
(emphasis supplied)
19. In Surajpa/ Singh v. State [AIR 1952 SC 52], a two-
Judge Bench observed that it was well-established that in an
appeal under Section 417 of the Cr.PC. (old}, the High Court B
I +· had full power to review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal was founded. But it was equally well-settled that the
presumption of innocence of the accused was further reinforced
by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial
court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and c
hearing their evidence could be reversed only for very substantial
and compelling reasons.

20. In Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra [AIR 1956
SC 217], the accused was prosecuted under Sections 302 and
447 IPC. He was acquitted by the trial court but convicted by D
the High Court. Dealing with the power of the High Court against
an order of acquittal, Bose, J. speaking for the majority (2: 1)
stated: (AIR p. 220, para 1)
"It is, in our opinion, well settled that it is not enough for the
· High Court to take a different view of the evidence; there E
must a/so be substantial and compelling reasons for
holding that the trial court was· wrong." (emphasis
supplied)
21. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC F
.--. 415], on consideration of a catena of earlier decisions of this
j,
Court and Privy Council, the following. general principles
'' regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
\
( 1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate G
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
~~ - acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power
H
J
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

-;.. ~
A and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstance$", "distorted conclusions", "glaring
B mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers
-< i
of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of
language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
c ·the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
D
available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be "'
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court
of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal,
the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
E reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
( 5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
F 22. Again in a recent decision in Girja Prasad (Dead) by ~-,

Lrs. V State of M. P. [(2007) 7 SCC 625], this Court held that in
an appeal against acquittal, it is for the Appellate Court to keep
in view the relevant principles of law, to re-appreciate and
reweigh the evidence as a whole and to come to its own
G conclusion on such evidence in consonance with the principles
of criminal jurisprudence. In the teeth of the well-established
principles discussed in the above-stated decisions, the question -;_ (

whether the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
has exceeded its limitations in an appeal against acquittal of
H the appellant by the Trial Judge, shall be dealt with in the later
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 179
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
) . part of the judgment after recording all the submissions urged A
on behalf of the appellant before us.
23. The learned senior counsel contended that the High
Court has failed to appreciate the vital aspect of the matter that
the trial court has recorded fact finding that the alleged eye-
,,_ witnesses in the present case were interested witnesses as B
#
they are related to the deceased and their evidence was not
reliable unless the same was corroborated by independent
witnesses who were not examined by the prosecution though
available to it or who have turned hostile to the prosecution.
c
24. The learned counsel then contended that the High Court
again committed grave error in relying on the evidence of panch
witnesses who have not supported the prosecution case in
respect of recovery of weapons of offence allegedly used in the
commission of the crime, surprisingly the High Court convicted
D
the appellant for offence under Section 302, while on the same
' -~

set of evidence it has given benefit of doubt to the appellant
holding him not guilty of offences under Section 307 of IPC and
Arms Act for causing gunshot injury to PW-Sanjay. According to
the learned counsel, the evidence of the eye-witnesses did not
inspire confidence in the prosecution story and reliance upon E
the same for convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC,
was wholly unsustainable. He next contended that the High Court
also failed to appreciate that statements of witnesses recorded
after considerable delay would point out towards a concerted
attempt on the part of the prosecution and the witnesses to F
.~~

falsely implicate the appellant. The High Court has failed to
appreciate that the report of the Chemical Analyser did not
j conclusively prove the presence of human blood-stains found
i on the clothes of the appellant bearing blood group of the
deceased Sunita. The trial court on the basis of these material G
defects and loopholes in the case of the prosecution has rightly
) .. drawn adverse inference against the prosecution, but the High
Court having failed to appreciate the material aspect of the
matter, recorded different findings against the appellant which
are wholly perverse based on mis-appreciation of the evidence H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A appearing on record. The learned counsel, by taking us through ' (
the judgment of the High Court, then contended that PW-Sanjay
has not stated in his statement anything in regard to the stab
injury caused to him by the appellant which is noticed by the
Medical Officer in his report. The prosecution has also not
B examined the Medical Officer, who had taken out pellets or its
remains from the body of PW-Sanjay and, therefore, full truth "" ~

has not come before the Court and genesis of occurrence has
been suppressed by the prosecution. He also raised a
contention that the High Court has failed to appreciate the
c evidence of PW-Rajesh, who has supported the defence version
to a considerable extent pleaded by the appellant in the .
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to the learned
counsel, the time mentioned at 7.30 p.m. in First Information
Report was also repeated on the arrest memo of the appellant
as well as on the other material documents prepared by the
D
Investigating Officer, would cast reasonable doubt that the
investigation was not conducted fairly and honestly. He then
submitted that the learned Trial court was right in holding the
prosecution case doubtful as it has failed to explain the injury
on the little finger of the hand of the appellant, but the High Court
E has held the appellant responsible for non-explanation of blood
injury on his finger, which finding is contrary to the well-settled
principle of law. The learned counsel then contended that the
evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses is full of contradictions,
unexplained discrepancies and also the fact that the statements
F of PW-Sanjay and Nirmalabai, were not recorded immediately ,,_,,
after they were taken to Paoni Hospital and statements of PW-
Archana and PW-Rupesh were recorded after about 3 or 4 days
from the day of incident, in spite of their availability for giving
the statements to the Police. According to the learned counsel,
G the statements of injured PW-Sanjay and Nirmalabai (who died
during trial) ought to have been recorded as dying declaration
to unfold the true genesis of the occurrence and to prove beyond A '
reasonable doubt that it was the appellant and none else who
caused the death of Sunita and injuries to PW-Sanjay and
H deceased Nirmalabai. It is also contended by the learned counsel
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 181
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
'1
that the prosecution story was inherently improbable as the A
appellant could not have held a gun in one hand and a knife in
another for inflicting injuries to the injured persons and deceased
Sunita by using two different weapons at the same time. Lastly,
the learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the learned
Trial Judge was valid and legal based upon proper appreciation 8
' of the evidence and reasonable considerations of the entire
'"
material on record which has been set aside by the High Court
on unsustainable, untenable grounds and misreading and mis-
appreciation of the entire evidence appearing on record.

25. In opposition, Dr. Rajiv Masodkar, learned counsel for c
the respondent-State, submitted that the evidence of injured PW-
Sanjay has been corroborated by PW-Archana, PW-Rupesh,
who are the other eye-witnesses of the occurrence, and also to
some extent by PW-Prakash Deshkar, the complainant. He
submitted that no doubt PW-2 Laxmibai, PW-3 Bilkish Begum, D
-< PW-5 Rajesh and PW-15 Nilkanth have resiled from their earlier
statements made to the Police and the Special Judicial
Magistrate, but their versions in the Court on material aspect of
the matter find support to the prosecution case and, therefore,
their evidence to that extent has to be accepted in the E
circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also relied upon
the evidence of PW-Vithoba Khobragade and PW-Harihar
Barsagade, who had noticed stains of blood on the wearing
apparel of the appellant at the time of his arrest and disclosure
statement made by him in their presence, on the basis of which F
r ~- gun and knife used for the commission of offence were recovered
coupled with the fact that blood-stained nails clippings are
sufficient and consistent circumstances connecting the appellant
in the commission of the crime. The learned counsel then
contended that the High Court has made proper and perspective
G
re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record and found the
appellant guilty of the offence of murder of Sunita and if the
~
Investigating Officer was not prompt in recording the statements
of the eye-witnesses, his slackness in no circumstances will
prove the innocence of the _appellant whose presence at the
H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.

A scene of occurrence armed with weapons of offence has been
fully establlsned by the injured eye-witness and other material
witnesses. He submitted that this Court shall not be obliged to
interfere with the well-merited and wel~-reasoned 1udgmant of
the High Court which, 1r no c1;cums•ar~e~. c-<:.-. ~'..: s<:.d as
s perverse or illegal.

26. In the backdrop of tne at,cNe-sa1a contentions of the
learned counsei for the parties aria m tr~e light of pnnctples iaid
down tn the above referred decisions ot this Court and the Privy
Council on the question of exercising powers in appeal by the
C High Court against the order of acquittal and the well-settled
principles laid down in a series of decisions of this Court on the
point of appreciation of the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses
and non-injured eye-witnesses we s"all co"r.ider ve evidence
placed on record to find oi.;+ whe her th:: ~'iph ('•.;rt has
D committed any error in deali' ,g Wltl' the evidence, wh,.~h can be
said to be patently 1llega1 or tnat ti''e conc1usion arrived at Is
•
wholly untenable. cailing fur irterit.» c.>nr,;e oy us.

27. The substance oi occ~rier~e of inC1Cient as alleged by
E the prosecution 1s not disputed and the only quest:on would be
whether the appellant is proved to be responsible for causing
the injury to deceased Sunita, which later on proved fatal to her.

28. It ts the categorical evidence of PW-Sanjay that on
28 OJ 1888 tie aiong with his wife ~unita, rr.oti1er-m-1aw
F N1rmalaba1. DW-Archana anu i-:'V. -Rupesh hat. gone tov. rds
the bndge Oi Watnganga River 10· evening walk At about .... 00 ,. ·
p.m wheri they started returnmg to the house of his mother-in-
law tney r.oticed the appellant and his one fnerid going on a
motorcyc.e •owards bndg, sic.: · .s soon a<i they reached near
G the house of h1s mother-in-law, he heard sound of gun fire from
his back side which hit him ir the back and at that time he saw
the appellant approaching be·1ird him armed with a gun. The
appeilant then kept gun a' one sirie of the seen"' ol tne mc'dent
and he r1mself rushed iowards tht:rn armed with Knife He
H attacked his wife Sunita with knife and stabbed parts of her
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 183
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.)
t '
head, neck and back, etc. and in the process, the appellant also A
assaulted his mother-in-law with the knife and on seeing the
people gathering at the spot, the appellant fled away from the
scene of occurrence. It is his evidence that one day before the
day of "Sakshagandha" ceremony, which took place on
13.12.1987, the appellant had come to his house at Nagpur B
and apprised him about his love-affair with Sunita and disclosed
that on an earlier occasion as well he had broken the proposal
of marriage of Sunita with one boy. The appellant warned him
that if he still would like to marry Sunita he would face dire
consequences at the hands of the appellant. The series of c
suggestions of the defence that on the day of incident the witness
had not seen the appellant at the spot; the appellant had not
carried the gun with him; the appellant had not rushed towards
him, his wife Sunita and other persons accompanying them
armed with knife and that the appellant had not stabbed
0
deceased Sunita and Nirmalabai with knife, have categorically
been denied by him. This witness is not a stranger to the
appellant and he has clearly identified the appellant as an
assailant. His evidence has not been shattered or discredited
by the defence in spite of searching cross-examination. He is
natural witness being an injured person and his evidence is E
cogent, satisfactory and consistent which has been properly re-
appreciated and accepted by the High Court holding the
appellant an assailant of the murder of Sunita.
29. PW-Archana has fully corroborated the testimony of F
PW-Sanjay. It is her evidence that on the day of occurrence,
Sunita had requested her and PW-Rupesh to give company to
her, her husband Sanjay and mother Nirmalabai, who had
decided to go to Wainganga river bridge.side for evening walk.
They left the house of Nirmalabai around 5.00 p.m. At about G
6.00 p.m. or 6.30 p.m. they started returning to the house of
Nirmalabai from the place of their visit, when they saw the
appellant and Raju Deshkar (PW-5) going towards the bridge
side riding on a motorcycle. It is her evidence that after crossing
the gate of Fort c.ind turning towards western side of the place , ,
r1
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 6 S.C.R.

A of incident, they heard a sound of gunshot, which hit PW-Sanjay
on his back and Sanjay shouted "Are Bapre" and as a result of
gun fire injury, Sanjay laid down on the road. Sunita and
Nirmalabai immediately rushed towards Sanjay and embraced
him. This witness has identified the appellant who was following
B them at a distance of about 5 or 6 feet holding a gun and one
knife in his hands. She deposed that in her presence the •
appellant at first attempt pulled Sunita's hair and then inflicted
knife blows on her head, neck and back without any cause. She
and PW-Rupesh got frightened due to the sudden horrible
c incident, they rushed to the house of PW-Sadashiorao -
grandfather of Sunita to narrate the incident but Sadashiorao,
at the relevant time, was not present in the house. The
grandmother of Sunita told them that her husband, at the relevant
time, could be found in the nearby house of Ganpati Nimje. She
along with PW-Rupesh went to the house of Ganpati Nimje and
0
they accordingly narrated the entire incident to PW-Sadashiorao,
who in turn immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence. She
stated that in the evening at about 7.30 p.m., she came to know
that Sunita had died. The learned counsel for the appellant has
challenged the testimony of this witness on the ground that she
E and PW-Rupesh, being close relatives of Sunita, had not cared
to take the injured to the Hospital nor they made any attempt to
go to the Police Station for reporting the matter and, therefore,
in such circumstances the presence of these two witnesses on
the place of occurrence was doubtful and they being the
F interested witnesses were later on introduced by the Police
projecting them as eye-witnesses. He next contended that the
statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was
recorded by the Police after 3 or 4 days of the incident which
fact itself would cast serious doubt about the presence of this
G witness on the scene of occurrence. We have independently
scrutinized the evidence of this witness and found that in spite
of lengthy cross-examination by the defence, her testimony could
not be impeached in regard to the manner in which the appellant
had assaulted deceased Sunita with knife. She had withstood
H the cross-examination very boldly and, in our view, she is a truthful
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 185
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

witness and has given positive, satisfactory and consistent A
account of the incident. The evidence of this witness is free from
any doubt and cannot be disbelieved or discarded simply
because she is a relative of deceased Sunita.
30. PW-Rupesh has corroborated the testimony of PWs-
Sanjay and Archana in its entirety. He has identified the appellant, B
·• who had pulled hair of Sunita at the scene of occurrence and
then stabbed her on her head, neck and back without any reason.
He corroborated the testimony of PW-Archana to the extent they
got frightened at the scene of occurrence due to sudden horrible
incident. He has categorically repeated the entire sequence of c
events which has been deposed by PW-Archana in her
deposition. It is his. evidence that in the evening around 7.00 or
7.30 p.m. he came to know that Sunita had died due to the
injuries she suffered at the hands of the appellant. The evidence
of this witness was consistent and free from embellishment. D
Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit
his testimony. A suggestion of the defence that in the evening of
the incident he did not accompany PW-Archana, PW-Sanjay,
deceased Sunita and deceased Nirmalabai for a walk as
deposed by him in the Court, has been denied by him E
categorically.
31. PW-6 corroborated the testimony of PWs~Archana and
Rupesh to the extent that both these witnesses had come to his
house and narrated the entire sequence of the incident to him.
He rushed to the spot of occurrence where he came to know F
~- "_)-
that injured Sunita, Sanjay and Nirmalabai were already taken
to the Hospital. He immediately went to the Hospital at Paoni,
where he found Nirmalabai, Sanjay and Sunita lying in an injured
condition. Sunita at that time was unconscious; therefore, he
could not speak to her. PW-Sanjay at that time was vomiting. A G
suggestion of the defence that when he went to the Hospital he
found Nirmalabai in an unconscious condition was denied by
him. One more suggestion of the defence that the witness has
falsely implicated the appellant because deceased Sunita was
his grand-daughter and also due to the reason that the father of H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A the appellant was not on speaking terms with him, was
emphaticcrny denied by him. Therefore, this witress has
corroborated the testimony of PWs-4 and 16 who had narrateo
the entire incident to him naming the appellant the author of thu
serious offence of murder of Sunita
B 32. PW-Prakash, who lodged report [Ext. 28) of the incident.
stated that on hearing Sunita's srJu•s "Wacnawa Wachawa', •
he rushed to the spot of incident and noticed Sunita lying with
bleeding injuries on the road side in front of the house of one
Ganeshe Tahsildar and he also spotted Nirmalabai and one
C man lying on the ground in an injured condition. The injured man
had uttered "Go/ya Kadha Go/ya Kadha". This witness, no
doubt, has turned hostile to the prosecution and in the cross-
examination by the ieamedA.P.P he denied having made portion
marked 'A' of his statement to the P011ce lo the exter.t that
D Mahesh was standing near the place where Sunlta, her husband
and Nirmalabai were lying with bleeding miuries, holding gun
between his knees and one knife in his hand and at that t~me
the appellant was shouting "arrest him arrest him". PW-1, the
complainant, is a Medical Practitioner and belongs to village
E Paoni. He knew the deceased Sunita, her mother Nirmalabai
and the appellant-Mahesh. His dispensary is at a distance of
about 50 feet from the place of occurrence. His evidence is that
Sunita, Nirmalabai and the man were having bleeding injuries
on their person. He lifted them into a rickshaw and took them to
F the Government Hospital at Paoni, where he assisted the
Medical Officer in giving medical treatment to the injured
persons. At about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. as per his version, Sunita
died in the hospital whereas Nirmalabai and the said injured
man were sent for better medica! treatment to Medical College
G Hospital at Nagpur. He stated that he reported the entire incident
to the Police in the Police Station and made a report (Ext. 28)
which was signed by him. The testimo 1y of this witness a:so
corroborates the testimony of 1nJured PW-Sanjay and othe: non
injured eye-witnesses to the extent th<" c.ccea.,;ea Sun it<>. F·, ,
Sanjay and Nirmalabai were lying with uieeo11 ~ 1Jur :;;, at t!' '
H
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 187
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
~

scene of occurrence on the day of incident. A
33. It is the evidence of PW-PSI Dhimole that portion mark
'A' appearing in the statement of PW-1 was recorded by him
correctly. lhe defence has not brought on record any evidence
to show why the Investigating Officer had recorded mark 'A'
... portion of the statement of PVV~1 incorrectly. If PW-1 the maker B
of the complaint has chosen not to corroborate his earlier
statement made in the complaint and recorded during
investigation, the conduct of such a witness for no plausible and
tenable reasons pointed out on record, will give rise to doubt
the testimony of the Investigating Officer who had sincerely and c
honestly conducted the entire investigation of the case. In these
circumstances, we are of the view that PW-1 has tried to conceal
the material truth from the Court with a sole purpose of shielding
and protecting the appellant for reasons best known to the
. Witness and therefore, no benefit could be given to the appellant D
. ..,
for unfavourable conduct of this witness to the prosecution .
34. Laxmibai (PW-2) and Bilkish Begum (PW-3) have also
followed the same trend which PW-1 had adopted. They were
confronted by the learned A.P.P. with portion mark 'A' of their
earlier statements made to the Police implicating the appellant E
as an assailant, but later on they have resiled from their earlier
statements perhaps for some undisclosed reasons and
considerations, which are confined to themselves. The evidence
of PSI Dhimole (PW-18) has proved on record that he had
j-- ), recorded mark portion 'A' of the statements made by PWs-2 F
and 3 during investigation, correctly and nothing more was
added by him in their statements.
35. Nilkant (PW-15) is the resident of village Paoni and he
is acquainted with the appellant. It is his evidence that at about
G
6.00 or 6.30 p.m. on the day of incident, he was sitting on a
bench in front of tea stall of one Gopal Somnathe, when he saw
-1
Nirmaiabai, her daughter and son-in-law coming from the bridge
side of the river and going to the house of Nirmalabai. He heard
some sound emanating from western side of the road. When
H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A he was going to his house, he came to know near the house of
one Parate that Nirmalabai's son-in-law was given beatings.
He returned to the shop of Gopal Somnathe where he was told
that the son-in-law of Nirmalabai had been taken to the hospital
in an injured condition. He was allowed to be cross-examined
B by the learned A.P.P. when he admitted that during investigation
of this case the Police had recorded his statement and later on
Special Judicial Magistrate had also recorded his statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. along with four or five more witnesses.
He has denied having made statement to the Special Judicial
c Magistrate to the extent that on the day of incident he saw the
appellant armed with a gun and giving knife blows on the person
of Sunita and her mother Nirmalabai.

36. Shri Prabhakar (PW-17) Special Judicial Magistrate
on 05.04.1988 recorded the statements of PW-Nilkanth, PW-
D Laxmibai, PW-Archana and PW-Rupesh under Section 164
Cr.P.C. On 06.04.1988, the Special Judicial Magistrate
recorded the statements of PW-Prakash - the complainant.
Copies of the statements were placed on record {E>-.1.79, Ext.80,
Ext.81, Ext. 82 and Ex.83) respectively. The Special Judicial
E Magistrate denied the suggestion of the defence that he had
prepared the statements of the said witnesses on the basis of
the statements recorded by the Police. PW-Prakash, PW-Laxmi
and PW-Nilkanth could not explain any reason why the Special
Judicial Magistrate was interested to record the portions of their
F statements incorrectly in which they had named the appellant
as an author of the crime. The testimony of the Investigating
Officer also would not ipso facto give rise to doubt its credibility
when the same was not shaken in cross-examination and he
has no animus against the appellant to frame him in a false
G case. Merely because PWs-1, 2, 3 and 15 did not support the
prosecution case when they were examined in the Court, that
would not, in the circumstances, lead to the conclusion that the
appellant was innocent. The Investigating Officer and the Special
Judicial Magistrate both have categorically stated that they had
correctly recorded the statements of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 15 under
H

I '
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STAJE OF 189
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
-,
Section 161, Cr.P.C. and Section 164, Cr.P.C. respectively. The A
testimony of the Investigating Officer and Special Judicial
Magistrate in no circumstances and for no good reason could
be disbelieved and discredited and we, accordingly, accept their
eyidence in its entirety without any_ hesitation.

_. 37. The learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the evidence B
of PW,Sanjay, PW-Archana, PW-Rupesh and PW-Sadashio
merely on the grounds that they are close relatives of deceased
Sunita and therefore interested witnesses and that no other
independent witnesses who were present at the scene of ·
occurrence, had been examined by the prosecution and c
therefore there was no independent corroboration to the eye-
witnesses account of the interested witnesses.

38. This Court in Salim Sahab v. State of M. P. [(2007) 1 .
sec; 699] held that mere relationship is not a factor to affect .D
the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation
.... wou.ld not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against
an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false
implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a
careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is
cogent and credible. In Masalti v. State of U. P [AIR 1965 SC E
202] this Court observed: (AIR pp. 209-210, para 14)
"But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that ·
evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on
the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested F
,_..,. witnesses .... The mechanical rejection of such evidence ·
on the sole ground that it is partisan, would invariably lead
to failure of justice.No hard and fast rule can be laid down
as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial
. approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence;
G
but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because
it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
. ..\
To the same effect are the decisions in State of Punjab v.
Jagir Singh [(1974) 3 SCC 277], Lehna v. State of Haryana
[(2002) 3 SCC 76] and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A [(2002) 8 sec 381 J.
. 39. As regards non-examination of the independent
witne!sses who probably witnessed the occurrence on the road
side, suffice it to say that testimony of the PW-Sanjay, an eye-
witness, who received injuries in the occurrence, if found to be
B trustworthy of belief, cannot be discarded merely for non-
examination of the independent witnesses. The High Court has
..
held in its judgment and, in our view, rightly that the reasons
given by the learned Trial Judge for discarding and disbelieving
the testimony of PWs-4, 5, 6 and 8 were wholly unreasonable,
c untenable and perverse. The occurrence of the incident, as
noticed earlier, is not in serious dispute. PW-Prakash Deshkar
has also admitted that he had lodged complaint to the Police
about the incident on the basis of which FIR came to be
registered and this witness has supported in his deposition the
D contents of the complaint to some extent. It is well-settled that in
such cases many a times, independent witnesses do not come y

forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. There are many
reasons that persons some times are not inclined to become
witnesses in the case for variety of reasons. It is well settled that
E merely because the witnesses examined by the prosecution are
relatives of the victim, that fact by itself will not be suft'icient to
discard and discredit the evidence of the relative witnesses, if
otherwise they are found to be truthful witnesses and rule of
caution is that the evidence of the relative witnesses has to be
F reliable evidence which has to be accepted after deep and
thorough scrutiny. . ""
40. PWs-4, 5, 6 and 8 have consistently supported the
prosecution case in their statements made before the Police
as well as in deposition before the trial court. We have referred
G to and discussed their material evidence in the earlier paragraph
of this judgment and we do not find any cogent and valid reason
to discard and discredit their testimony, more so when their • .
evidence is corroborated by medical evidence and other
important piece of evidence appearing on record. Dr. Laxman
H Fegadkar (PW-10) on 28.03.1988 had admitted injured Sunita,
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 191
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
~
Nirmalabai and PW-Sanjay in the Government Hospital, Paoni. A
He immediately passed on the information to the Police Station
about the admission of the injured persons in the Hospital. He
received a letter from the Police Officer, Paoni, requesting him
to certify whether Sunita was in a fit condition to give statement
and in reply thereto, doctor certified that Sunita was not fit for 8
giving oral statement as she was lying unconscious. He could
not take sample of blood of Sunita as her veins had collapsed.
On examination of Sunita, he found as many as 9 injuries on her
body. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were caused by
a sharp- edged weapon within a duration of six hours. According c
to the opinion of the doctor, the general condition of Sunita was
poor when she was brought to the hospital and Sunita expired
around 7.15 p.m. on 28.03.1988.Doctor placed on record Injury
Certificate (Ext. 54) of Sunita. Dr. Laxman also conducted
medical examination of injured Sanjay and on examination his
D
condition was also found very poor and as many as three severe
" injuries were found on his person. Injury No.1 could be caused
by sharp object and Injury Nos. 2 and 3 were as a result of fire
arm as per doctor's opinion. The duration of all the said injuries
was reported to be within six hours. The case of PW-Sanjay
was referred to Medical College, Nagpur, for further E
management. The injury statement of PW-Sanjay was placed
on record mark (Ext. 55). On the same day, Dr. Laxman
examined Nirmalabai and found as many as four injuries on her
person caused by sharp object and the duration of the injuries
was within six hours. Injured Nirmalabai was also referred to F
f- ""
Nagpur for further management and her Injury Certificate was
placed on record marked Exhibit 56.
41. Dr. Laxman medically examined the appellant at about
10.30 p.m. on 29.03.1988 when he was brought to the hospital
G
by Police Constable. A lacerated wound 1 cm x 1cm over right
little finger, muscle deep over middle phalanx was noticed on
his hand by the doctor. The injury was found simple in nature
and could have been caused by hard and blunt object within a
duration of about 24 hours. The Injury Certificate of the appellant
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A was placed on record marked Exhibit 57. Doctor collected five
C.C. Venous blood from the body of the appellant. On
30.03.1988, the Police Station Officer of Paoni sent one knife
to the doctor for his opinion. Dr. Laxman found blade of the knife
blood-stained. Doctor has opined that the injuries found on the
B body of Sunita and on the person of PW-Sanjay, as mentioned
in their Medical Certificates, could be caused by knife which he
identified (Art. No. 20) before the Court. In post mortem report
of the deceased Sunita, doctor reported the injuries to be ante
mortem. He found two internal injuries on the body of deceased
C Sunita: (1) Pleura-perforating injury 1 cm x 1 cm upto apex of
left lung and (2) Left lung: 2cmx1h cm injury to the apex of left
lung plenty blood collection was seen in left thoracic cavity.
Doctor opined the cause of death of Sunita due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of severe injury to vital part, i.e., left
lung. Injury No.2 as described in post mortem report was
D reported to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause
the death of Sunita and was possible with knife [Article No. 20].
In cross-examination, Dr. Laxman categorically stated that when
Sanjay and Nirmalabai were brought to the hospital, their
conditions were serious; therefore they were referred to the
E Medical Hospital, Nagpur, for further medical treatment. A
suggestion of the defence that the injuries mentioned by him in
the Injury Statement (Ext. 54) and post mortem report (Ext. 62)
of deceased Sunita could not have been possibly caused by
knife (Art. No. 20) has been categorically denied by him.
F 42. Thus, the testimony of the eye-witnesses including the
injured eye-witness PW-Sanjay finds complete corroboration
from the medical evidence in regard to the severe injuries
sustained by deceased Sunita at the hands of the appellant with
knife (Art. 20), the weapon of offence used in the commission
G of the crime. PW-Sanjay and his brother PW-Manik deposed
that the appellant had extended threats to PW-Sanjay to get
ready for facing dire consequences if he would marry with Sunita
since the appellant was in love with her since their school days.
The evidence of these witnesses on this aspect has remained
H intact and untouched from the defence side.
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 193
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.)

43. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant A
that the conduct of PWs-Archana and Rupesh, the alleged eye-
withesses, not accompanying the injured persons to the hospital
and not reporting the incident to the Police should be viewed
with suspicion and, therefore, their evidence has to be rejected
from consideration. in support of this submission, reliance has B
been placed on Surlnder Singh v. State of Punjab [(1989)
' -"
Supp. (2) sec 21]. In that case, after seeing the occurrence
the eye-witness had not gone to inform the parents and relatives
of the deceased but had gone to his own house and slept for
some time and then went and informed the matter to PW-3 and c
some other persons. In such circumstances of the case, this
Court found the conduct of the said witness suspicious and his
explanation that due to threats of the accused he did not inform
anyone forthwith was not found acceptable. The facts and
circumstances of that case are entirely different to the factual
D
situation of the present case. In the present case, we find from
... the record that at the time of the occurrence of the crime PW-
Archaria was about 19 years of age whereas PW-Rupesh was
hardly 14 years of age. Both these witnesses as earlier stated
on seeing the appellant giving repeated knife blows on some
parts of r:ieck, head and back of Sunita and inflicting severe E
injuries to PW·Sanjay and Nirmalabai, they immediately rushed
to the house of PW-Sadashio and promptly reported the entire
incident to him. The conduct of these two children, in these
circumstances, cannot be found suspicious or unnatural as
contended by the learned counsel. These witnesses have F
I _,
withstood the cross-examination with courage and boldness and
their testimony could not be impeached by the defence in regard
to the genesis of the incident. The eye-witnesses have no
animus against the appellant to implicate him in a false case
and leaving the real assailant from the clutches of law. In the G
circumstances, no fault can be found in regard to the conduct of
these witnesses. This contention raised deserves to be rejected
~

44. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that
because of the fault of the Investigating Officer not recording
H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A the statements of injured Nirmalabai, Sunita and PW-Sanjay m
the form of dying declarations; the true genesis of the incident
and name of the author of the crime have been concealed by
the prosecution. In order to appreciate this contention, we have
already pointed out in the earlier part of the judgment that as
B per·the opinion of Dr. Laxman, injured Sunita was in serious
condition when she was brought to the hospital and she could
'
...
not regain the consciousness till she succumbed to her injuries.
As regards non-recording of the statements of injured Sanjay
and Nirmalabai, it is the explanation of the Investigating Officer
c that he tried to get their statements recorded, but considering
the seriousness of injuries on their person, doctor had referred
them to the Medical College, Nagpur, and before they could be
taken to Nagpur, he made an attempt to request the Tehsildar
or any other Magistrate to visit hospital for recording statements
of the injured persons, but no officers were found available at
D
the relevant time for the said purpose. In these circumstances,
no fault could lie on the conduct of the Investigating Officer and
this contention therefore is rejected. It is also submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that there are some
discrepancies, contradictions and omissions in the evidence
E of PW-Archana, PW-Rupesh and PW-Sanjay in regard to giving
different time of the incident, reporting of the matter to the Police
and preparation of memos by the Investigating Officer during
investigation would create suspicion that they are not trustworthy
and natural witnesses and they have tried to implicate the
F appellant as an assailant in a false case. PW-Sanjay and PW-
Manik both clearly and unambiguously deposed in regard to . '
the motive of the appellant. The appellant, as noticed above, in
his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C., has admitted that he
along with PW-Rajesh around 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. on the date of
G incident had gone on a motorcycle towards the river side for
evening walk. The versions of PWs-Sanjay and Manik that
before marriage of Sanjay with Sunita, the appellant had gone
to the house of Sanjay at Nagpur and disclosed the factum of •
his love--affair with Sunita have not been rebutted by the appellant
H in his statement. PW-Rajesh and appellant himself have
MAHESH S/0.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 195
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

admitted that at about 5.30 p.m. or 6.00 p.m. on the day of A
occurrence, both of them had gone on motorcycle to river side
for evening walk. In cross-examination by Public Prosecutor,
PW-Rajesh along with the appellant had returned to their
respective houses at about 7.30 p.m. and thereafter at about
7.45 p.m. or 7.50 p.m. he again went to hill side along with Ulhas, B
the elder brother of the appellant. The High Court has observed
' .. that this piece of evidence of this witness was not possible to
believe that when such incident had occurred in a village and
his friend appellant was arrested by the Police at about 7.30
p.m. for the mblrderof Sunita and causing severe injuries to PW- c
Sanjay and Nirmalabai, this witness along with elder brother of
the appellant would have gone for second round of walk and in
such sequence of events, PW-Rajesh was obviously hiding the
truth from the Court. His evidence does not lend any support to
the defence plea of the appellant that he has been falsely framed
D
in this case by the Police or by eye-witnesses for some ulterior
reasons .
....
45. The appellant was arrested by the Investigating Officer
in the presence of PW-Vithoba Khobragade and PW-Harihar.
The learned counsel submitted that there is discrepancy in giving E
7.30 p.m. the time of the arrest of the appellant, which was
factually incorrect as the same time was mentioned in the FIR
and no reliance, therefore, could be placed on such documents
and according to the counsel no reliance could be placed on
the evidence of PW-Harihar being habitual panch witness of F

,. the Police. It is no doubt true that PW-Harihar in cross-
examination admitted that during the period from 1978 to 1981
_., he had given evidence as Panch in 5 or 6 cases in the Court on
behalf of the Police as his residence is located in front of the
Police Colony. It is difficult to believe that simply because this
G
witness in the past had appeared as Panch in the Court during
the period 1978 to 1981 and for that sole reason he has to be
branded as habitual Panch witness and in this case for the
...
incident of 1988 he had blindly signed Panchnama (Ext. 41 ).
PW-Vithoba Khobragade is a Legal Practitioner and he has
H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A fully supporied the preparation of the arrest panchnama of the
appellant. The appellant has not pointed out any reason as to
why PW-Vithoba Khobragade has deposed against him. The
arrest Panchnama (Ext. 41) would reveal that the appellant at
the time of arrest was wearing a sky colour white check manila
B and brown catechu coloured full-pant and stains of blood were
noticed at his shirt when he was arrested. It also finds mentioned
in the Panchnama that the appellant had a cut injury on his right
little finger and blood was oozing out of the said injury. The
Panchnama was prepared by the Investing Officer immediately
c after the incident. The appellant has not explained the existence
of cut injury on his right little finger. Dr. Laxman recorded the cut
injury on the little finger of the appellant in the Medical Report
(Ext. 57). The injury was simple in nature and was caused by
blunt object. Besides the arrest panchnama (Ext. 41 ), the
Investigating Officer prepared panchnama (Ext. 45) by which
0
samples of nail clippings of the appellant were also taken in the
presence of PW-Vithoba Khobragade. Chemical Analyser's
Report (Ext. 100) shows that the shirt, pant and nail clippings of
the appellant contained stains of human blood. The learned
counsel contended that the prosecution has not taken the
E sample of blood group of the deceased Sunita for comparison
with group of blood found on wearing apparel of the appellant
and in such circumstances it could not be established that the
group of blood found on the clothes of the appellant as well as
on his nail clippings was the blood group of the deceased Sunita.
F He also contended that the prosecution has not explained the
injury found on the little finger of the right hand of the appellant , '
and, therefore, the appellant on this ground was also entitled to
the benefit of doubt which has rightly been given to him by the
trial court. We are afraid to accept this contention of the learned
G counsel. Dr. Laxman in his deposition before the Court clearly
stated that on receipt of a letter from Police Station Officer
requesting for taking sample of blood of deceased Sunita, he
tried to collect her blood but he was unable to collect the same
as all veins of Sunita had collapsed. He handed over Certificate
H (Ext. 52) to the Police to that effect. The appellant has not
MAHESH S/O.JA_NARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 197
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
~

explained that the clothes which he was wearing at the time of A
arrest contained stains of his own blood oozing out of the injury
sustained by him on little finger of his right hand. It is no doubt
true that human blood found on the clothes and nail clippings of
the appellant was not conclusive proof that it belonged to the
blood group of the deceased. The decision of this Court in B
Raghu Nath v. State ofHarnaya & Anr. [(2003) 1 SCC 398],
relied upon by the appellant on this point, is of no assistance to
him in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that
case, this Court held that where prosecution evidence consisted
of inte~sted or inimical witnesses and defence version would c
compete in probability with that of the prosecution, non-
explanation of the injuries of grievous nature sustained by the
accused rendered the prosecution story doubtful. That was a
case of mob~fight in which injuries were received by both the
parties in the melee.
D
"i
46. This Court in Krishan & Ors. v. State of Haryana
[(2006) 12 sec 459] held that merely because prosecution has
failed to explain injuries on the accused, the same cannot be a
solitary ground for doubting the prosecution case, if otherwise,
evidence relied upon is' found to be credible. In the case on E
hand, as we are of the view that no ground is made out to
disbelieve and discard the evidence of PWs-4, 8 and 16, who
are injured and non-injured eye-witnesses and whose evidence
is corroborated by other oral and documentary evidence
) :... including the medical evidence, therefore non-explanation of F
· simple injury on little finger of the right hand of the appellant by
the prosecution is insignificant in the teeth of the overwhelming,
cogent, consistent and trustworthy evidence appearing on record
against the appellant for holding him guilty of the commission of
the offence.
G
4 7. The recovery of the gun and knife was effected by the
Investigating Officer at the instance of the appellant from his
house in the presence of panch witnesses PW-Vithoba
Khobragade and PW-Harihar. It is no doubt true that PW-
Vithoba Khobragade deposed that the appellant did not disclose H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.
•
A anything before the Police, but he also deposed that the Police
had recovered a gun and one knife from the house of the
appellant at his instance at about 9.40 to 10.30 on 28.03.1988.
The High Court, in our view, rightly observed that it was not
possible to hold that the prosecution witnesses or the Police
had planted these articles in the house of the appellant, so as to
B •
make a show of discovery of the weapons of offence from him.
The blade of the knife recovered from the appellant contained
blood stains as per the version of Dr. Laxman when this weapon
was shown to him by the Police. As per the Chemical Analyser's
c Report, stains of human blood were found on the knife, which
was produced in the Court and identified by Dr. Laxman who
categorically stated that injuries found on the dead body of
Sunita could be caused by the said weapon (Article No.20).

48. The High Court, on reappraisal and reassessment of
D the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that
immediately after the occurrence a report came to be lodged to
the Police Station against the appellant who has been identified
by the PW-Sanjay, an injured eye-witness and non-injured eye-
witnesses and further that the appellant had strong motive to
E commit the murder of Sunita with malice towards PW-San jay-
her husband, as well as her deceased mother Nirmalabai,
therefore, simply because there are some minor discrepancies
in the evidence of witnesses which are of no consequence to
the true genesis of the case and that some evidence has not
F been adduced by the prosecution, though might have been , '
available, would not be sufficient grounds to believe that the
appellant has been booked in a false case. There is nothing on
record brought by the appellant to show that it was quite possible
that the witnesses would spare the real culprit and implicate
him in a false case. On the basis of the entire evidence
G
elaborately discussed by the High Court, it cannot be held that
the appellant, in the present case, has been framed on suspicion. .,
49. Having given our careful· consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in
H the light of the evidence discussed in the earlier part of the
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 199
MAHARASHTRA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

judgment and tested in the light of the principles of law A
highlighted above, it must be held that the interference made in
the present case by the High Court with the order of acquittal
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, was wholly
justified and warranted. The evaluation of the findings recorded
by the High Court do not suffer from any manifest error and s
• improper and mis-appreciation of evidence on record. Hence,
we agree with the opinion of the High Court that the appellant is
the real culprit and he has been rightly held guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. All the contentions raised
by the learned counsel for the appellant, in our view, do not merit c
acceptance.
50. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it is,
accordingly, dismissed.
R.P. Appeal dismissed
0

..