RANGNATH SHAMAO DHAS & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                         [2009] 3 S.C.R. 526


A              RANGNATH SHAMAO DHAS & ORS.
                                                                         .   '


                                v.
                   STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                (Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2002)
                       FEBRUARY 27, 2009
B


                                                                     .-
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR                                     '

                        GANGULY, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 Part II r/w s.149 -Assault with
c   swords and axes - Death due to cumulative effect of the
    injuries caused - Held: Accused-appellants liable to be
    convicted u/s.304 Part-II r/w s.149.

       According to the prosecution, owing to a previous
D enmity,   the accused-appellants assaulted PW4's father           I-
  with swords and axes which resulted in his death.
  Placing reliance on the evidence of PW 4, 5 and 6, the
  Courts below convicted the appellants in terms of s.304,
  Part II r/w s.149 IPC. Hence the present appeal.
E       Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1. The First Information Report was lodged
  within a very short time. The alleged occurrence took
  place around 2.45 p.m. and the FIR was lodged at 7.15             ~
                                                                                 --
F p.m. at the Police Station which was situated at about 22
  K.M. from the place of incident. The evidence of PWs 4,5
  and 6 clearly established the complicity of the accused
  persons. Added to that, as rightly noted by the High Court
  the medical evidence is not at total variance with the
G
  ocular evidence. [Para 5] [530-D-F]                                            l
                                                                         ~

        Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR         " '
                                                                                 fl.
    1983 SC 484, referred to.

        2. In the instant case the doctor has categorically
H                              526
           RANGNATH SHAMAO DHAS & ORS. v. STATE OF                  527
                       MAHARASHTRA
       stated that the cumulative effe,ct of the injuries was the          A
       cause of death. That being so, the judgment of the High
       Court affirming that of the trial Court cannot be said to
       be in any way unsustainable. [Para 6] (531-8-C]

                             Case Law Reference:
                                                                           B
            AIR 1983 SC 484           referred to            Para 5
....       CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
       No. 194 of 2002.

           From the Judgment/Order dated 16.8.2001 passed by               C
       the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal
       No. 441 of 1985.

            Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellant.
                                                                           D
            Ravindra Keshavrao for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
       to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court        E
       upholding the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable
       under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the Indian
       Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Two appeals were
       disposed of by a common order. Criminal Appeal No.441 of
       1985 was filed by the present appellants questioning their          F


,      conviction while Criminal Appeal No.608 of 1985 was filed by
       the State of Maharashtra contending that the appropriate
       conviction should have been under Section 302 read with
       Section 149 IPC.

           2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:               G

            The informant Murlidhar Krishna Ronge (PW-4) is the son
       of Krishna (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). At the
       time of the incident, the informant, Manik Suryabhan Dhas
       (PW-5), Vasant Bhagwan Dhas (PW-6) and the appellants               H
    528      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009) 3 S.C.R.


A were living in Village Dhas Pimpalgaon within the limits of
                                                                    .    ....

  Taluka Barshi, District Solapur. The appellants are closely
  interconnected. Appellants Rangnath and Ganpati are brothers
  and appellant Govardhan is their relation. Appellants Narsing
  and Dattu are also brothers.
B
       There was enmity between the deceased, the informant
  on one hand and the appellants on the other. There were two
  pieces of land known by the name of Vanjechi Patti and            . .,
  Chinchechi Patti. The former was admeasuring two acres and
  the latter one- and-half acres. The land known as Chinchechi
C Patti originally belonged to one Atmaram Ronge and was
  purchased in auction by the deceased Krishna. After
  purchasing it, the deceased started cultivating it. One
  Dnyandeo Ronge, who was a tenant of the said land, had
  given up his rights. Appellant Govardhan's niece was married
D to the son of the said Dnyandeo Govardhan and Dnyandeo
  wanted that the land known as Chinchechi Patti should be
  sold without consideration. The deceased, on account of
  threats of Govardhan, executed sale deed of that land in favour
  of Dnyandeo. About one-and-half years prior to the incident,
E the marriage of the informant Murlidhar was settled with the
  daughter of one Vithal, resident of village Dhas Pimpalgaon.
  The appellants were irked by this because they did not want
  the deceased to settle the marriage of informant with Vithal's
                                                                     .
  daughter. The appellants used to also threaten the informant
F and the deceased, saying that they should give up the land
  Vanjechi Patti.

       On 22nd November, 1984 at about 7.30 a.m., the
  informant Murlidhar, his father Krishna (deceased), his
G labourers Manik Dhas and Vasant Dhas came to land gat
  No.98, where crops of sugarcane, jowar and gram were
  standing. They started cutting the sugarcane crop. At about
  2.00 p.m. all of them had lunch, which was brought by the
  informant's mother. Thereafter, the informant went to take a
  round and the deceased Krishna directed Manik and Vasant
H
                RANGNATH SHAMAO DHAS & ORS. v. STATE OF                    529
                   MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
,,. "'
             to get to the northern side of the field for work. At about 2.45     A
             p.m., the informant. Manik and Vasant heard the shouts of
             Krishna "Melo Melo" (I am dying, I am dying). Consequently,
             they rushed towards the place from where the cries were
             coming. They saw appellants Rangnath and Govardhan armed
             with swords, appellants Ganpat, Narsing and Dattu armed with         B

~       .    axes, chasing K~ishna. They also saw that they overtook
             Krishna in the jowar crop, and thereafter, started assaulting
             him with weapons in their hands resulting in his falling down.
             The informant asked them not to assault Krishna and to save
             him from being assaulted fell on his body. Thereupon, the            c
             appellants stopped assaulting Krishna. When Manik and Vasant
             tried to intervene, appellants Rangnath and Govardhan
             threatened them with dire consequences. Thereafter, the
             appellants ran away.

                  As a consequence of the assault, and the informant falling      0
             down on Krishna's person to save him from being assaulted
             by the appellants, the clothes of Krishna were stained with
             blood.

                   After the appellants had run away, the informant Murlidhar     E
             brought a bullock cart, put his father Krishna in the said bullock
             cart, and proceeded with him to village Khadkalgaon. At the
    ~
             outskirts of the said Village, Krishna breathed his last.
        J.   Thereafter, the informant carried the corpse of his father to his
             house and proceeded to Pangari Police Station to lodge the           F
             F.l.R.

                 On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
             Charges were framed and as the accused persons pleaded
             innocence, trial was held. PWs 4, 5 and 6 were stated to be
    . "'     eye witnesses and placing reliance on their evidence the trial
             Court recorded the conviction in terms of Section 304 Part II
                                                                                  G

             IPC and imposed 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.
                  3. In appeal before the High Court the primary stand wast
             that the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is not made out H
    530         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 3 S.C.R.

                                                                             " ....
A and the evidence of so called eye witnesses is unworthy of
  credence. It was submitted that the time as indicated by the
  eye witnesses is unacceptable because the medical evidence
  shows that there was no undigested or semi-digested food. It
  was also submitted that the doctor's evidence clearly showed
B that the injuries could not have caused death cumulatively in
  some cases. That being so, the conviction under Section 304
  Part 11 IPC is not proper. The High Court held that the medical
  evidence did not wholly belie the prosecution version and did
                                                                         .. -
  not render the eye witnesses' version suspect. The High Court
c did not accept appellants' stand and observed that the doctor
  has given a hypothetical answer that in some cases it might
  cause death and in some cases it might not cause death, but
  stated in clear terms that in the instant case it has caused
  death. The High Court held that the conviction as recorded by
  the trial Court under Section 304 Part II IPC is in order.
D
          4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the parties
    re-iterated the respective submissions before the High Court.

        5. It is to be noted that the First Information Report was
E lodged within a very short time. The alleged occurrence took
  place around 2.45 p.m. and the FIR was lodged at 7.15 p.m.
  at the Police Station which was situated at about 22 K.M. from
  the place of incidence. The evidence of PWs 4, 5 and 6 clearly              .
  established the complicity of the accused persons. ·Added to           •
F that, as rightly noted by the High Court the medical evidence
  is not at total variance with the ocular evidence. It was observed
  in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1983
  SC 484 at para 12) as follows:

          "12. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only
G         corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been     >     ~
          caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use
          which the defence can make of the medical evidence is
          to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been
          caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the
H         eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in
   RANGNATH SHAMAO DHAS & ORS. v. STATE OF                   531
      MAHARASHTRA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

    its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all           A
    possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the
    manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-
    witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged
    inconsistency between it and the medical evidence."
                                                                    B
     6. In the instant case as noted above the doctor has
categorically stated that the cumulative effect of the injuries
was the cause of death. That being so, the judgment of the
High Court affirming that of the trial Court cannot be said to be
in any way unsustainable. The appeal is without merit, deserves     C
dismissal which we direct. The appellants who were released
on bail in terms of the order dated 3.12.2001 shall surrender
to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.

B.B.B.                                      Appeal dismissed.