NANA KESHAV LAGADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                       [2013] 10 S.C.R. 606


A                     NANA KESHAV LAGAD
                                  V.
                    STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1010 of 2008)
                           JULY 3, 2013
B
         [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND FAKKIR
            MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 and s.324 rlw s.34 -
C Murder - Common intention - Dispute over land - Leading to
  assault with cycle chain and stone - Multiple injuries to
  complainant (PW4) and death of his father - Conviction of
  accused-appellants - Justification - Held: On facts, justified -
  The conviction was not based on the solitary statement of
o PW4 alone - The evidence of PW4, read along with the
  version of PW5 and medical evidence, as well as the expert
  opinion, discloses the involvement of the appellants in the
  crime, apart from their common intention to eliminate the
  deceased, as well as PW4 - -PW4 fortunately escaped though
E he also suffered multiple injuries, which ultimately happened
  to be not serious - In the circumstances, it cannot be said that
  s. 34 was not attracted -The medical evidence substantially
  establishes the intention of the accused to eliminate the
  deceased and the injuries sustained by the deceased
F discloses the coordinated vengeance with which the assault
  was caused by the appellants, in order to ensure that the
  deceased did not survive.
       Witness - Appreciation of - ·Credibility - Murder case -
  Number of accused - In his oral evidence before the Court,
G PW4-complainant fully supported his version, barring the
  presence of two accused - PW4 admitted that those two
  accused were not present at the time of the incident and to
  that extent, his statement in the complaint was incorrect -

H                               606
 NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                 607


Held: However, on that score, it cannot bJ3 held that the whole   A
of the evidence of PW4 has to be rejected - Since the
evidence of PW4 in every other respect fully supports his
version in the complaint and which was also to a very great
extent supported by the medical evidence and version of
another eyewitness PW5, no reason to disbelieve his version       B
in order to reject the case of the prosecution.

    Witness - Panch witness - Appreciation - Held: Merely
because the panch witness in question had tendered
evidence in another case, it cannot be held that on that score    C
alone his evidence should be rejected - Version of the said
witness was truthfully and fully corroborated, and hence, was
acceptable.

    Evidence - Murder case - Defence plea with reference to
bloodstains found on the clothes of the accused that the          D
prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the same through
independent evidence - Held: Not tenable - It was for the
accused-appellants to have explained as to how the clothes
wom by them contained human blood- In s.313 questioning,
no explanation was forthcoming from the appellants - Code         E
of Criminal Proccedure, 1973 - s.313.

     The accused party as well as the complainant party
were residents of the same village; and owned and
possessed agricultural lands adjacent to each other.              F
There were disputes between them, as regards the use
of way to their respective lands. It was alleged that on
account of the said enmity, the accused persons
attacked PW4-complainant and his father with cycle chain
and stone, as a result of which the father of PW4                 G
sustained bleeding injuries over his head and other parts
of the body, and died. PW4 also was injured in the
incident.

   The _trial-coltrt conviclea Ifie-accusect:.app·euants
under Section 302 read with Sectio11 34 and Section 324           H
    608      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A read with Section-34 of 1.P.C, and sentenced them to
  undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction
  and sentence was affirmed by the High Court.
       In the instant appeal, the appellants challenged their
B conviction contending that the same was mainly based
  on the sole eye-witness, P.W.4 and having regard to the
  various discrepancies in his evidence, he could not have
  been present and witnessed the incident. The appellants
  contended that in the F.l.R., P.W.4 named six persons,
c while in his oral evidence, he left out two of the names;
  and that the evidence of P.W.3, a panch witness for the
  recovery of cycle chain and stone, was not fully
  established. It was further contended that the trial Court
  without any supporting expert evidence concluded that
0 the shirt of two accused contained human blood, which
  was not true; and that Section 34 of 1.P.C. was not
  attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
          Dismissing the appeals, the Court

E      HELD: 1. The injuries found on the body of the
  deceased were noted in the postmortem report Ex.35.
  There were as many as 19 injuries on the dead body.
  Apart from the 19 external injuries, Ex.35 has also
  referred to 4 internal injuries. P.W.4, the injured
F eyewitness, suffered as many as 11 injuries, which have
  been noted by the very same doctor, P.W.6, in the injury
  certificate marked as Ex.37. The doctor in his evidence
  has stated that all the injuries on the body of the
  deceased were ante-mortem in nature; and also that the
G injuries on the body of the deceased were caused by hard
  and blunt objects and that injuries Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 16
  were possible due to assault by cycle chain, while the
  other injuries were possible due to pelting of stones. He
  specifically stated that injuries Nos.18, 19 and 20 were
H possible due to assault by a stone, which was marked
                                  '
  NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                609


before the Court. Ultimately, the doctor stated that the A
injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause
the death of a person. Insofar as the injuries found on the
body of P.W.4 is concerned, P.W.6 doctor deposed that
these injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects and
cycle chain. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) [618-C-D; 619-G-H; B
620-B-C; 621-C, D-F]
     2.1. P. W.4 narrated the enmity that was prevailing
between his family, headed by his father, the deceased, and
the accused in regard to the right of way to reach their           c
agricultural land and as to what exactly transpired on
04.10.2002 at 7.00 a.m. The material facts stated by him were
that, while in the morning when P.W.4 and his father wanted
to reach their field for sowing maize seeds, they were
obstructed by the first accused, abused and threatened             0
not to use the way and therefore they returned back home.
Thereafter, according to him, the deceased father went to
attend the Court proceedings, while he had gone to the field
along with his cattle. It was further stated thatin the evening,
he returned back by 5.15 p.m. and thatthrough his neighbor,        E
Bapu Dada Ghadage, his sister informed him about the
factum of the appellants, along with other accused waiting
at Kolgaon Lagadwadi road, with an intention to assault
his father and that he reached the said place in a bicycle
and before he could reach the place of occurrence, he              F
noticed all the accused beating his father with cycle chain
and stone, while simultaneously abusing him. He stated
that he was able to notice the same, while he was about
200 meters away from the actual place of occurrence and
that the appellants and the other accused turned towards           G
him and started assaulting him also with cycle chain and
stone and that only at the intervention of Raju, he could
escape from the assault of the accused and reach his father,
but found him having suffered serious bleeding injury on
his head, as well as beating marks all over his body and           H
    610     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   was asking for water. Thereafter, according to him, he went .
    back to his village in the bicycle and got a jeep belonging
    to Rajendra Ujagare, in whose vehicle he took his father to
    the rural hospital, where the doctor after examining his
    father, declared him dead. The said statement of the
B   complainant, PW4, contained relevantfactors, which were
    necessary for the registration of the FIR against the
    accused. [Paras 23, 24] [621-G-H; 622-A-G]
         2.2. In his oral evidence, before the Court, P.W.4 fully
c   supported his version, barring the presence of two of the
    accused, namely, Ganesh and Sandeep. P.W.4 fairly
    admitted that they were not present at the time of the
    incident and to that extent, his statement in the complaint
    was incorrect However, on that score, it cannot be held
0   that the whole of the evidence of P.W.4 has to be rejected.
    Since the evidence of P.W.4 in every other respect fully
    supports his version in the complaint and which was
    also to a very great extent supported by the medical
    evidence and version of other eyewitness P.W.5, there is
E   no reason to disbelieve his version in order to reject the
    case of the prosecution. [Paras 25, 26] [623-A-B, E-F]
       3. The submission relating to the evidence of P.W.3,
  the panch witness, who supported the recovery of cycle
  chain etc., cove!'ed by Exs.22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, was too
F trivial in nature, the said submission being on the footing
  that he was a stock witness. The Trial Court also rejected
  the said submission by pointing out that merely because
  the said witness had tendered evidence in another case,
  it cannot be held that on that score alone his evidence
G should be rejected. The Trial Court found that his
  version, as regards the recovery was truthfully and fully
  corroborated, was acceptable and there was no reason
  to reject the version of the said witness. The detailed
  reasoning adduced by the Trial Court and accepted by
H the High Court, makes it clear that there is no good
  NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA            611


ground to interfere with their ultimate conclusion. [Para     A
28] (623-H; 624-A-C]
     4. Another submission made on behalf of the
appellants was with reference to the human blood found
in the clothes worn by A 1 and A4. It was contended that      8
the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish through
any independent evidence about the bloodstains found
in their clothes. However, in fact, as rightly noted by the
Trial Court; It was for the appellants to have explained as
to how the clothes worn by them contained human blood.        C
In Section 313 questioning, no explanation was
forthcoming from the appellants. (Paras 29, 30] (624-D-E;
625-G-H] ·

     5. In the case at hand, the conviction was not based
on the solitary statement of P.W.4 al<>ne, but was also D
supported by other eyewitness viz., P.W.5, whose
evidence merited acceptance on par with the evidence of
P.W.4, ,apart from the medical evidence fully supporting
the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.4, read
along with the version of P.W.5 and the other medical E
evidence, as well as the expert opinion, discloses the
involvement of the appellants in the crime, apart from their
common intention to eliminate the deceased, as well as
P.W.4. P.W.4 fortunately escaped though he also suffered
multiple injuries, which ultimately happened to be not F
serious. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that
Section 34 was not attracted to the case on hand. The
medical evidence substantially establishes the intention
of the accused to eliminate the deceased and the injuries
sustained by the deceased discloses the coordinated G
vengeance with which the assault was caused by the
appellants, in order to ensure that the deceased did not
survive. [Paras 31, 32 and 33] [626-8-C, D-G]

    Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras AIR 1957 SC       H
    612      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 10 S.C,R


A   614: 1957 SCR 981; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya
    Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259: 2010 (13) SCR 311 - held
    inapplicable.
                          Case Law Reference:
B      1957 SCR 981           held inapplicable Paras 12, 31
       2010 (13) SCR 311 held inapplicable Para 12 and 32
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1010 of 2008.
c
         From the Judgment & Order dated 16.01.2006 of the High
    Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 611
    of 2003.
                                   WITH
D
    Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2008.

        Sushil Karanjkar, M.Y. Deshmukh, Nikilesh Kumar,
    Shrikand R. Deshmukh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the
    Appellant.
E
          Shankar Chillarge, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. These
F   two appeals are against the common judgment of the High
    Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, in Cri.A.No.611 of 2003,
    dated 16.01.2006.

         2. The appellant in Crl.A. No.1010 of 2008 is A4 and the
G   appellants in Crl.A.No.1011 of 2008 are A2 and A3. In all, four
    accused were prosecuted and convicted by the learned
    Sessions Judge. The accused preferred an appeal before the
    High Court against the conviction and sentence imposed on
    them by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.191
H   of 2002, by its judgment dated 21.08.2003.
  NANA KESPIAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                613
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
     3. All the accused were convicted for offences under A
Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with
Section 34 of l.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life, a-part from payment of fine of Rs.500/- and
in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six
months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 B
of l.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment, along with fine
of Rs.300/- and in default to undergo one month rigorous
imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 read with
Section 34 of l.P.C. The appellants stated to have paid the fine
amount on 21.08.2003 itself. The J-ligh Court having upheld the c
conviction and sentence imposed against the appeliants, they
have come forward with these appeals. The first accused-
Keshav died and the remaining accused are before us.

     4. As the genesis of the case of the prosecution goes, all
                                                                    0
the accused persons, the complainant Santosh Ramchandra
Lagad, who is the son of the deceased Ramachandra Lagad,
were all residents of the same village, Lagadwadi. They owned
and possessed agricultural lands adjacent to each other. There
were disputes, as regards the use of way to their respective E
lands. The deceased Ramachandra La~ad stated to have filed
a suit against the appellants at Shrigonda Court for injunction.
They also approached other authorities wirh regard to protection
of their right of way to go to their agricultural lands. It appears
that at one stage they resorted to hunger strike for the redressal
of their grievances. At that time, the police interfered and the F
accused were directed to allow the deceased and his family
members, including the complainant to use the old way as an
access to their land, till a decision was arrived at in the Civil
Court.
                                                                    G
     5. It was alleged that in spite of such direction by the
police, there was violation at the instance of the accused
persons. On 04.10.2002, at about 7.00 a.m., when the
complainant P.W.4 and his deceased father, were proceeding
towards their field for sowing maize seeds, the first accused H
    614      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   stated to have obstructed them from proceeding on the disput~
    way. He also stated to have abused and threatened the
    complainant and his deceased father. P.W.4 and his father
    returned back to their house. Thereafter, the deceased went to
    Shrigonda Court to attend the hearing of the civil case, while
B   the complainant P.W.4 went out looking after his cattle.

          6. At about 5.15 p.m., on the same day, after the
    complainant P.W.4 returned to his house after watering onion
    crops, his sister came to know from one Bapu Dada Ghadage
c   that the accused persons were waiting at Kolgaon Lagadwadi
    road for her father, Ramachandra Lagad, to return to his village
    with an intention to assault him. The complainant was therefore,
    asked to rush to the spot immediately. The complainant P.W.4,
    stated to have reached the spot in a bicycle and that according
    to him, when he was about to reach the spot i.e., from a
0
    distance of about 200 meters from the spot, he saw all the four
    accused persons along with one Ganesh Sambhaji Lagad and
    Sandeep Sambhaji Lagad, beating his father Ramachandra
    Lagad, while at the san:ie time abusing him. It is also claimed
E   that P.W.4 himself along with his deceased father,
    Ramachandra Lagad, was attacked with cycle chain and stone.
    The accused also stated to have threatened the complainant
    and his father to face dire consequences if they continue to use
    the disputed pathway. At that time, one Raju came to the rescue
F   of P.W.4 in his motorcycle, who interfered and separated the
    complainant from the clutches of .the accused. The complainant
    noted his father having sustained bleeding injuries over his head
    and other parts of the body, returned back to his village to fetch
    a jeep taxi, in which he took his father to Shrigonda police
G   station. As directed by the police, P.W.4 took his father to the
    rural hospital where, the doctors declared him dead. P.W.4 was
    also examined by the doctor who gave him first-aid treatment
    and thereafter, P.W.4 lodged a complaint with the police.

        7. The complaint was registered as CR.No.249 of 2002,
H   against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
  NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                 615
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
302, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of l.P.C., as well as        A
Section 37(a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

     8. P.W.16, AP.I. Rajendra Narhari Padwal conducted the
inquest, visited the spot of the incident, collected his blood
stained shirt and soil, recorded the statement of the witnesses 8
and arrested the accused. Based on the admissible portion of
the confession statement made by the appellants, cycle chain
and stones were seized in the presence of panch witnesses.
The clothes of the accused Keshav, which contained blood
stains, the clothes of the deceased and the blood mixed soil C
collected from the spot, the weapons used for the crime and
the blood sample, along with the clothes of the deceased were
sent for chemical analysis. Charge-sheet came to be filed
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrigonda,
who committed the case to the Sessions Court.
                                                                D
     9. Before the Sessions Court, 16 witnesses were
examined in support of the prosecution. P. W.1 and P. W.2 who
were panch witnesses, turned hostile. P.W.3 was another panch
witness to support the recovery of cycle chain in Exs.22, 23,
24, 25 and 26. P.W.4 is the complainant who is the son of the E
deceased and injured eyewitness. P.W.5 is another eye-
witness. P.W.6 was Dr. Namdeo Sopan Shinde, who conducted
the postmortem of the deceased, and who also treated P.W.4.
Ex.35 is the postmortem certificate and Ex.37 is the injury
certificate of P.W.4. P.W.7 is another panch witness through F
whom Exs.38 and 39 were marked. P.W.13 is the mother of
the complainant. P.W.16 is another witness to prove the inquest
report Ex.50 and arrest panchanama Exs.54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
61and62.
                                                                    G
      10. The Trial Court on a detailed analysis of the evidence,
as well as the submissions made on behalf of the appellants
and other accused, found all the accused guilty of the offence
falling under Section 302 read with Section 34 of l.P.C. and for
offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of        H
    616       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   l.P.C. The High Court having confirmed the conviction and
    sentence, the appellants are before us.

        11. We heard Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for the
    appellants. We also heard Mr. Shankar Chillarage, learned
8   counsel for the respondent State.

        12. Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for the appellants
  in his submissions contended, after making refurence to the
  F.l.R., that in the case on hand the conviction was mainly based
  on the sole eye-witness, P.W.4 and that having regard to the
C various discrepancies in his evidence, he could not have been
  present and witnessed the incident. The learned counsel
  contended that in the F.l.R., P.W.4 did not make any reference
  as to which weapon was u.sed by which accused and that he
  named six persons, while in his oral evidence, he left out two
D of the names. The learned counsel for the appellants contended
  that the injuries on the deceased, as well as P.W.4 and the
  weapons used, do not correlate with each other. The learned
  counsel by referring to the evidence of P.W.3, who was a panch
  witness for the recovery of cycle chain and stone, contended
E that the same was not fully established. The learned counsel
  pointed out that the Trial Court without any supporting expert
  evidence concluded that the shirt of the appellant in
  Crl.A.No.101Oof2008 and the first accused in Crl.A.No.1011
  of 2008, contained human blood, which was not true. It was also
F contended that the whole conviction was based on the evidence
  of P.W.4, as an injured eyewitness and that the version of the
  said witnesses was not correlated by any other legally
  acceptable evidence. Lastly, it was contended that Section 34
  of l.P.C. was not attracted and, therefore, on that ground as well
G the conviction was liable to be set aside. The learned counsel
  relied upon Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras - AIR
  1957 SC 614 and Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya
  Pradesh - (2010) 10 SCC 259, in support of his submissions.

H         13. As against the above submissions, the learned counsel
  NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                  617
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

for the State contended that the case squarely fell under Section A
300 thirdly, which is duly established by the evidence of the
doctor who had made a categorical statement that the injuries
caused the death. The learned counsel for the State further ·
contended that apart from the evidence of P.W.4, the evidence
of P.W.5 who was another eyewitness, supported the case of B
the prosecution, apart from the medical evidence and the proof
of the weapons used by the accused. The learned counsel
therefore contended that the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellants was fully justified and the judgment impugned
therefore, does not call for interference.                        C
      14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants,
as we!I as the learned counsel for the State and having perused
the impugned judgment of the High Court, as well as that of the
Trial Court and the other material papers plaeed on record, we       0
find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
State.
     15. When we consider the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellants, the sole contention was that the only
evidence of P.W.4, who was examined as an eyewitness to the          E
incident was closely related to the deceased and since there
were so many contradictions in his version, in the absence of
proper corroboration by any other witnesses or.other evidence,
the Trial Court as well as the High Court ought not to have relied
upon his sole testimony for the purpose of convicting the            F
appellants.                                    ·

     16. We considered the said submission and we find that
the said submission does not merit acceptance. We can briefly
summarize the case of the prosecution based on the evidence          G
placed before the Trial Court. We must state that the Trial Court
has considered the submissions made on behalf of the
appellants very minutely and has given justifiable reasons with
supporting factors in order to reject each and every one of the
submissions made on behalf of the appellants. We also find           H
    618       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A that the Trial Court, as well as the High Court have not only
  relied upon the sole testimony of P.W.4, but upon very many
  other supporting materials such as oral, documentary, as well
  as material objects to support its conclusions. It has also made
  a detailed reference to the medical evidence and has found that
B the medical evidence fully supported the ocular evidence and
  therefore, the ultimate conclusion of finding the appellants guilty
  of the offence, was fully established.

      17. In order to appreciate the submissions, as well as the
c conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court, in the foremost, it will
  be appropriate to refer to the injuries sustained by the
  deceased, as well as the complainant. The injuries found on the
  body of the deceased were noted in the postmortem report
  Ex.35. There were as many as 19 injuries on the dead body of
0 Ramachandra Lagad viz.,
          "(1) Whole of scapular, inter-scapular and intra-scapular
          region with linear abrasion like left scapula and 2 in
          numbers of size 10 cm x 1 cm of 7 cm x 1 cm.

E                (i) Left scapular region 3 in numbers each 12 cm
                 x 10 cm
                 (ii) Inter-scapular region 2 in numbers of size 10
                 cm x 1 cm each.
F                (iii) Intra-scapular region 2 in no. each of 15 cm x
                 1 cm.·

          (2) Contusion on right lumber region of back extending
          lower region on back with abrasion on surface.
G
          (3) Contusion on left lumber region brownish with abrasion
          on surface.

          (4) Contusion on upper part of left thigh posteriorally 10
          cm x ~ cm with abrasion on surface.
H
 NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. SIATE OF MAHARASHTRA                      619
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
    (5) Lenear abrasion on right buttock 4 cm x 2 cm.                   A

    (6) Abrasion on post surface of right thigh 4 in numbers
    each of 1 cm x 1 cm.

    (7) Abrasion on post surface of left knee 5 cm x 1 cm.
                                                                        B
    (8) C.L. W on upper part of occiput 2 cm x U cm by bone
    deep oozing was present.

    (9) Contusion on lateral region of right thigh 7 in no. each
    of 1 cm x U cm
                                                                        c
    (10) C.L. W on right thigh laterally lower part 2 cm x U
    cm x U cm clot present.

    (11) Contused abrasion on right calf 5 cm x 1 cm.

    (12) Abrasion on post region of right elbow 5 in no. each           D
    of 1cmx1 cm.

    (13) Abrasion below left knee 2 cm x 1 cm.

    (14) Contusion on right arm laterally 1 U cm x U cm.                E

    (15) Abrasion on scrotum right side 2 cm x 2 cm.

    (16) Contused abrasion right shoulder 6 cm and 1 cm.

    (17) Abrasion shin of tibia right leg 16 cm x 1 cm with             F
    abrasions on surface.

     (18) Abrasion on upper part of right eye-brow 2 cm x U
     cm.

     (19) Abrasion on lateral region of left elbow 3 cm x 1 cm."        G

     Apart from the 19 external injuries, Ex.35 has also referred
to 4 internal injuries, which are as under:

     "(1) Fracture of tibio fibula on upper part of left ankle joint.
                                                                        H
    620       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A         (2) Fracture of right mandibular angle and left
          mandibular angle.

          (3) Fracture of right 3rd, 4th and 5th rib anteriorly.

          (4) Fracture of left 3rd, 4th, 5th rib anteriorly."
B
         18. As far as P.W.4, the injured eyewitness is concerned,
    he has suffered as many as 11 injuries, which have been noted
    by the very same doctor, P.W.6, in the injury certificate marked
    as Ex.37. The injuries were as under:
c         "(1) Contused abrasion on posterior region of left forearm
          4 in No. each of 1 .% cm x 1 cm redness present.

          (2) Contusion on lateral region of left arm 8 cm x 1 cm
          chain mark seen.
D
          (3) Contusion on posterior region of left shoulder
          extending on back 11 cm x 1 cm redness was present.
          Chain mark was also present.

          (4) Contusion on anterior region of right shoulder near
E         axil/a 3 cm x .% cm and swelling was present.

          (5) Contused abrasion on lateral region of chest lower
          part left side 10 cm x 1 cm bleeding was present.

          (6) Contused abrasion on left suprascapular region 5 in
F
          No. each of 12 cm x 1 cm chain mark seen.

          (7) Contusion on lumber region of back right side
          extending on left lumber region 24 cm x 1 cm. Chain
          mark present.
G
          (8) Contusion abrasion on medial region of right scapula
          extending obliquely to intrascapular and supra scapular
          region 2 in no. each of size 20 cm x 1 cm redness was
          present. Chain mark present.
H
  NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                621
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    (9) Contused abrasion on right lumber region vertical 6 A
    cm x 1 cm. chain mark present.

    (10) Contused abrasion right scapular 2 in no. each of 2
    U cm and 2 cm and bleeding was present.

    (11) Contusion on middle of right arm posteriorly 6 cm x      8
    1 cm swelling present."

     19. The doctor in his evidence has stated that all the injuries
on the body of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature; that
there was intra cerebral hemorrhage and that the cause of death C
was shock due to hemorrhage in intra cerebral region and
thoraCic cavity due to injury through thoracic and head.

     20. He also stated that the injuries on the body of the
deceased were caused by hard and blunt objects and that 0
injuries Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 16 were possible due to assault by
cycle chain, while the other injuries were possible due to pelting
of stones. He specifically stated that injuries Nos. 18, 19 and 20
were possible due to assault by a stone, which was marked
before the Court. Ultimately, the doctor stated that the injuries E
were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of a
person.

    21. In so far as the injuries found on the body of P.W.4 is
concerned, P.W.6 doctor deposed that these injuries were
caused by hard and blunt objects and cycle chain.                 F

     22. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the
evidence of P.W.4, does not merit any credence, in as much
as there were lot of discrepancies as between his complaint
dated 04.10.2002 and his evidence submitted before the Court. G

     23. To consider the said submission, when we examine the
statement found in the complaint of P.W.4, we find that he has
narrated the enmity that was prevailing between his family,
headed by his father, the deceased, and the accused in regard     H
-   622      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   to the right of way to reach their agricultural land arid as to what
    exactly transpired on 04.10.2002 at 7.00 a.m. The material facts
    stated by him were that, while in the morning when P.W.4 and
    his father wanted to reach their field for sowing maize seeds,
    they were obstructed by the first accused, abused and
B   threatened not to use the way and therefore they returned back
    home. Thereafter, according to him, the deceased father went
    to attend the Court proceedings, while he had gone to the field
    along with his cattle. It was further stated that in the evening,
    he returned back by 5.15 p.m. and that through his neighbor,
c   Bapu Dada Ghadage, his sister informed him about the factum
    of the appellants, along with other accused waiting at Kolgaon
    Lagadwadi road, with an intention to assault his father and that
    he reached the said place in a bicycle and before he could
    reach the place of occurrence, he noticed all the accused
D   beating his father with cycle chain and stone, while
    simultaneously abusing him. He stated that he was able to
    notice the same, while he was about 200 meters away from
    the actual place of occurrence and that the appellants and the
    other accused turned towards him and started assaulting him
E   also with cycle chain and stone and that only at the intervention
    of Raju, he could escape from the assault of the accused and
    reach his father, but found him having suffered serious bleeding
    injury on his head, as well as beating marks all over his body
    and was asking for water. Thereafter, according to him, he went
F   back to his village in the bicycle and got a jeep belonging to
    Rajendra Ujagare, in whose vehicle he took his father to the
    rural hospital, where the doctor after examining his father,
    declared him dead.

        24. It is relevant to note that the said statement of the
G   complainant, P.W.4, contained relevant factors, which were
    necessary for the registration of the F.l.R. against the accused.

         25. With this when we examine his oral evidence before
    the Court, it was pointed out that while in the complaint he had
H
   NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                   623
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

 named six persons as the assaulting party of his father and          A
 himself, per contra, in the oral evidence, he had only referred
 to four of them. In his oral evidence, before the Court, P.W.4
 fully supported hi.s version, barring the presence of two of the
 accused, namely, Ganesh and Sandeep. P.W.4 fairly admitted
 that they were not present at the time of the incident and to that   B
 extent, his statement in the complaint was incorrect.

      26. Though, on behalf of the appellants by making
 reference to certain insignificant statements contained in the
 evidence of P.W.4, vis-a-vis the complaint, it was sought to be      c
 contended that the whole of the evidence of P.W.4 should be
 eschewed from consideration, we find there is absolutely no
 substance in the said submission. On a detailed reading of the
 complaint, as well as the evidence of P.W.4, we find that every
 one of the statements other than the reference to Ganesh and
                                                                      0
 Sandeep, were fully supported by P.W.4 without any deviation.
 Even his statement before the Court about Ganesh and
 Sandeep, should be accepted as a very fair submission, as he
 did not want to unnecessarily rope in persons who were not
 involved in the crime. On that score, it cannot be held that the     E
 whole of the evidence of P.W.4 has to be rejected. Since the
 evidence of P.W.4 in every other respect fully supports his
 version in the complaint and which was also to a very great
 extent supported by the medical evidence and version of other
 eyewitness P.W.5, there is no reason to disbelieve his version
                                                                      F
 in order to reject the case of the prosecution.

        27. In this respect, when we look into the judgment of the
  Trial Court, we find that the Trial Court has analyzed every one
  of the submissions relating to the evidence of P.W.4 in detail
  and has found no substance in the contention made on behalf         G
  of the appellants. Therefore, based on the said submissions,
  regarding the evidence of P.W.4, we do not find any scope to
· interfere with the judgment impugned in these appeals.

      28. The other submissions related to the evidence of            H
    624       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A P.W.3, the panch witness, who supported the recovery of cycle
  chain etc., covered by Exs.22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, were too trivial
  in nature, as we find that the submission was on the footing that
  he was a stock witness. The Trial Court has also rejected the
  said submission by pointing out that merely because the said
B witness had tendered evidence in another case, it cannot be
  held that on that score alone his evidence should be rejected.
  The Trial Court has found that when his version, as regards the
  recovery was truthfully and fully corroborated, was acceptable
  and there was no reason to reject the version of the said
C witness. Having perused the detailed reasoning adduced by the
  Trial Court and accepted by the High Court, we do not find any
  good ground to interfere with the ultimate conclusion on that
  ground.

0      29. The other submission made on behalf of the appellants
  was with reference to the human blood found in the clothes worn
  by A 1 and A4. It was contended that the prosecution failed to
  satisfactorily establish through any independent evidence about
  the bloodstains found in the clothes of A1, as well as the
E appellant in Crl.A.No.1010 of 2008. In that respect instead of
  reiterating the details, it will be sufficient to refer to the
  conclusion reached by the Trial Court, while dealing with the
  said contention, which are found in paragraph 63. The relevant
  part of it reads as under:

F         "63. In the present case, the evidence of AP/ Padwal in
          this respect is not seriously challenged or shattered. After
          all the accused are arrested under Panchanama and at
          the time of arrest panchanama of accused Nana blood
          stained clothes were seized. It is not in any way contended
G         or for that matter even whispered that I. O.API Padwal was
          having any rancor against the accused or he was
          motivated or interested in one sided investigation with the
          sole object of implicating the accused. As a matter of fact,
          the investigation in this case appears to be totally
H         impartial. When it was transpired that two accused by
  NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                    625
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    name Sandeep and Ganesh, the juvenile delinquent                   A
    have not taken part in the assault, their names were
    deleted from the prosecution case by filing report Uls 169
    of Cr. P. C. Therefore, here the investigation as proceeded
    impartially and it is also not even for the sake of it, is
    suggested to AP/ Padwa/ that, no such blood stained                B
    clothes were recovered from the accused Nana,
    moreover, as per the settled position of law, there is no
    presumption in Jaw that a Police Officer acts dishonestly
    and his evidence cannot be acted upon. Therefore, here
    the evidence of AP/ Padwal is sufficient to prove the              c
    recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused. His
    evidence also goes to prove that, all these articles blood
    stained clothes etc., were sent to C.A. and as per the C.A.
    report Exh. 61 the blood was detected on the clothes of
    the accused and deceased and this blood was human
                                                                       0
    blood ................ In the present case, though the C.A.
    report, Exh.61 shows that, the said human blood was of
    group "B~ C.A. report Exh.62 about the blood sample of
    the accused states that, the blood group could not be
    ascertained as the results were inconclusive, moreover,
    there is no C.A. of the blood sample of the deceased to            E
    prove that, he was having ¢/ood group "8". However, the
    fact remains that, the stains of human blood were found
    on the clothes of accused Nana and he has not
    explained how this blood stains were on his clothes and
    therefore, as observed in this authority, it becomes one           F
    more highly incriminating circumstance against the
    accused."

    30. In fact, as rightly noted by the Trial Court, it was for the
appellants to have explained as to how the clothes worn by them G
contained human blood. In Section 313 questioning, no
explanation was forthcoming from the appellants. In these
circumstances, the said conteption also does not merit any
consideration.
                                                                H
    626      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 10 S.C.R.

A        31. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance
    upon Vadivelu Thevar (supra), to support the contention that
    since the conviction was based on the solitary evidence of
    P.W.4, without proper corroboration, the same cannot be
    sustained. As we have found that it was not based on the
B solitary statement of P.W.4 alone, but was also supported by
  , other eyewitness viz., P.W.5, whose evidence merited
    acceptance on par with the evidence of P.W.4, apart from the
    medical evidence fully supporting the case of the prosecution,
    the said decision can have no application to the facts of this
c case.
        32. As far as the reliance placed on the decision in Abdul
    Sayeed (supra), we find that the said decision does not support
  the case of the appellants, since in the case on hand, the
  evidence of P.W.4, read along with the version of P.W.5 and
D the other medical evidence, as well as the expert opinion,
  discloses the involvement of the appellants in the crime, apart
  from their common intention to eliminate the deceased, as well
  as P.W.4. P.W.4 fortunately escaped though he also suffered
  multiple injuries, which ultimately happened to be not serious.
E In such circumstances, we do not find any substance in the said
  submission to hold that Section 34 was not attracted to the case
  on hand. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the said decision
  also does not help the appellants.
F         33. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
    State, the medical evidence substantially establishes the
    intention of the accused to eliminate the deceased and the
  . injuries sustained by the deceased discloses the coordinated
   vengeance with which the assault was caused by the appellants,
G in order to ensure that the deceased did not survive.
        34. Having regard to our above conclusion, we do not find
    any merit in these appeals. These appeals fail and the same
    are dismissed.
H   B.B.B.                                   Appeals dismissed.