Holding

The prosecution proved the guilt of all three accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC stand.

Summary

The deceased Sukhdeo Chikane was attacked and fatally injured with a iron instrument called a "sattur" by three accused brothers amid a long‑standing boundary dispute. The FIR named all three assailants and eyewitnesses (Vikram and Avinash Chikane) identified them as the perpetrators. Medical post‑mortem showed multiple lethal head and neck injuries consistent with the weapon. The trial court convicted only one brother; the High Court convicted all three under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the eyewitness testimony, police investigation, recovery of the weapon and medical evidence were reliable and that the defence witnesses were either hearsay or unreliable. Consequently, the Court affirmed the convictions of all three accused for murder under Section 302/34 IPC and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses and police investigation establishes the participation of all three accused in the murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (common intention).
Whether the defence witnesses' testimony is reliable and can create reasonable doubt.
Whether the claim of a pistol discharge, based on hearsay, affects the conviction.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Acts. 135, s. 37(i)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 135, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

murdercommon intentionIPC Section 302IPC Section 34eyewitness testimonypolice investigationappealSupreme Court of India

Judgment

RAJENDRA PRABHU CHIKANE AND ANR ETC. A
,J.
v.
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

MAY I, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860-ss.302134-Murder-Three accused-Allegation
that they assaulted deceased with 'Sattur ', an iron instrument used for
cutting sugarcane-Previous enmity between parties with regard to boundary
dispute in respect of agricultural lan~onvictions of accused no. I under
c
s. 302 and other two accused under s. 302134-Propriety of-Held, proper-
Police report was lodged promptly and all actions were taken soon after the
incident-Jn the FIR all three accused were named as assailants-This version
corroborated by testimony of PWJ as well as PW3-Further corroboration
from medical evidence-Besides, weapon of offence recovered pursuant to D
inte"ogation of one accused-Prosecution proved guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

There was bad blood and enmity between the parties in view of a boundary
dispute in respect of an agricultural land belonging to the father of the
deceased. E

According to the prosecution, the three accused-appellants assaulted
the deceased, with accused no. 1 attacking him on his head whereafter all the
three accused attacking him on his head with a Sattur, an iron instrument
used for cutting sugarcane. The deceased received seven injuries, most of
which injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body like the head and the F
neck.

Trial Court convicted accused no. 1 under Section 302 IPC but acquitted
accused nos. 2 & 3 High Court upheld the conviction of accused no. 1 and
also set aside the acquittal of accused no. 2. and 3 by convicting them under G
Section 302/34 IPC. Hence the present appeals.
.,;. ,,
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. In the FIR all the three accused have been named as the
1075 H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A assailants and this version is corroborated by the testimony of PWI as swell
as PW3. They all stated that accused No I attacked deceased on his head and
thereafter all three accused attacked him on his head with a Sattur, which is
scythe like iron instrument used for cutting sugarcane. Thus the evidence of
PWl and PW3 is consistent with each other, and also with the F.I.R.
[Para 221(1083-G-H;1084-A]
B
2. The port mortem on the deceased shows as many as seven injuries.
Most of the injuries were on vital parts of the body, i.e. on the head or the
neck. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the testimony of the
eyewitnesses PWl AND PW3. (Para 23] [1084-A-B) )
c 3. A perusal of testimony of PW 2 shows that he was not an eyewitness
at all. His evidence regarding the incident is only hearsay and no value can
be attached to the same. However, this does not detract or discredit the
testimony of PW I and PW3 which is consistent with the F.I.R. version and
with each other. [Para 24) [1084-C-D)
D
4. The evidence of DWI is not reliable at all inasmuch as in his cross-
examinations he stated that he did not lodge any complaint in writing to any
authority informing the facts which he had deposed. He did not also make a
complaint to anybody that he accused were falsely implicated in the case. He
has mentioned that he came to know that the accused persons had been
E arrested for committing the murder of deceased. If he was really of the opinion
that these accused had been falsely implicated he would normally have informed
the Police and and/or other persons about it. The fact that he did not do so
belies his testimony. For the same reason the testimony of DW2 is also
rejected. [Para 26) [1084-E-G]
F 5. A perusal of the testimony of PWll, the Police Sub-Inspector at the
~
Vairag Police Station shows that a Police report was lodged promptly and all
actions were taken soon after the incident. This witness had seen lot of blood
on the spot and two pieces of brain and skull and other articles. He had
prepared spot Punchnama in the presence of panchwitnesses. He had collected
G blood-stained soil and simpl~ soil etc. from the place of the incident. The Sub-
Inspector then arrested the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 who had blood-
stained clothes. Accused no.3 was interrogated in the presence of ~
I.,,

panchwitnesses and he volunteered to discover the weapon used at the time of
the offence which kept under a heap of stones near the well of a field. He
volunteered to accompany the Police.to point out the same. Thereafter accused
H
RAJENDRA PRABHU CHIKANE I'. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. [MARKANDEY KATJU, l.] I077

no. 3, PWl 1 and Police staff and panchwitnesses sat on the Jeep and went to A
the spot where accused no. 3 took out two Satturs kept hidden under a heap
of stones. [Para 27) [1084-G-H; 1085-A-B)

6. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWl 1, the police
Sub-Inspector. The evidence of PWl and PW3 is also found credible. The
prosecution has thus proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. B
[Para 28) [1085-C)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 708 of
2005.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2005 & 03.03.2005 of the C
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of2001.

WITH

Cr!. A. No. 832 of2005.
D
Uday U. Lalit, Sanjay V. Kharde, S.S. Jadhwar and Chandan Rarnamurthi
for the Appellants.

Ravindra K .Adsure (for V.N. Ragthupathy) for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. These two connected appeals (Criminal
Appeal No. 708/2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 832/2005) have been filed
against the common judgment and final order dated 2.3.2005 and 3.3.2005

- passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 99/2001 and 609/
2000.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
F

3. Criminal Appeal No. 708/2005 has been filed by accused No. 2 Rajendra
Chikane and accused No. 3 Shashikant Chikane, whereas, Criminal Appeal No.
832/2005 has been filed by accused No. I Sharad Chikane in Sessions Case G
No. 250/1999.

4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 250/
1999 had acquitted accused No. 2 and 3 of the offence under Section 302/34
IPC, but had convicted accused No. 1 Sharad Chikane under Section 302 IPC
and sentenced him to life imprisonment as well as fine. H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 5 S.C.R.

A 5. Against the said judgment of the trial court, accused No. I Sharad
Chikane, filed an appeal in the High Court which was dismissed, whereas, the
appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against acquittal of accused No. 2
and 3, was allowed and both the accused were convicted under Section 302/
34 !PC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine.

B 6. The prosecution case was that the deceased Sukhdeo Chikane was
the Sarpanch of village Gulpoli, Taluka Barshi, Dist. Solapur since 1990. He
was a resident of village Gulpoli. The complainant (PW!) Vikram Chikane who
is an eye witness was a cousin brother of the deceased Sukhdeo. Dipak ,.I
Chikane (PW2) was the real brother of the complainant Vikram and thus
C another cousin brother of the deceased Sukhdeo. Avinash Chikane (PW3)
who is the second eye witness was a close relative of PW! Vikram and PW2
Dipak. Anil Mali (PW4) was a person who was from the Shivsena group in
the village, of which group the deceased Sukhdeo was the leader.

7. The father of deceased Sukhdeo was Bhaskar. An agricultural land
D of Bhaskar was situated next to the land of one Kisan Sawant who was his
son-in-law. In respect of the said land there was a boundary dispute between
the family members of Bhaskar Chikane and Kisan Sawant. Another son of
Bhaskar named Shirish had filed Regular Civil Suit No.204/93 against Kisan
Sawaht and one another seeking an injunction. The said suit had been filed
on 30.4.1993. On 26.12.1996 the TILR had effected measurement in respect of
E the disputed areas which were the subject matter of the suit. The prosecution
case was that in view of such disputes, there was bad blood and enmity
between the deceased Sukhdeo on the one hand and the family members of
Bhaskar including his sons. The record indicates that on 13.10.1997, deceased
Sukhdeo had also filed a criminal case being Criminal case No.6253/97 in the
F Court of JMFC Barshi. The said case w.as filed against accused No. I Sharad,
accused No.3 Shashikant and one of their brother Dhananjay alleging
commission of an offence under Sections 323, 504 & 34 of the !PC. The
evidence indicates that such legal proceedings were pending in the Court
when the incident, which is the subject matter of the present case, took place
on 16.9.1999. On 16.9.1999, at about 9.30 A.M. deceased Sukhdeo alongwith
G (PW!) Vikram, (PW3) Avinash, (PW4) Anil Mali, Brahmadev Chikane, Babruvan
Machale, Sopan Machale, Shridhar Machale, Nagnath Machale, Laxman Shinde
and Gautam Chikane started from village Gulpoli in a jeep. They were proceeding
to the Sub-Registrar office at village Vairag in order to execute a Sale deed
by which one of them i.e. Brahmdeo Chikane was to purchase the land of one
H Sopan Machale, which land was situated at village Gulpoli. The jeep carrying
RAJENDRA PRABHU CHI KANE'" STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. [MAR.KA NOEY KAT JU, J) 1079
j the persons as aforesaid reached the Vairag Sub-Registrar's office at about A
12.00 noon. A Stamp vendor/Bond writer by name Kale scribed the sale deed
and thereafter the sale deed was executed in the Sub-Registrar's office. After
the execution of the sale deed at about 1.30 P.M., the aforesaid persons came
out of the Sub-Registrar's office and reached upto their jeep which was
standing on the road adjoining the office. At that time accused No. I Sharad
Chikane, accused No.2 Rajendra Chikane and accused No.3 Shashikant @ B
Sheshrao Chikane came running towards them from the eastern side. Accused
No.3 threw chilli powder in the eyes of deceased Sukhdeo, and then accused
~ No. I gave a blow on the head of the deceased Sukhdeo with a Sattur which
he was carrying with him. On receiving this blow Sukhdeo collapsed on the
ground. All the three accused Sharad, Shashikant and Rajendra then inflicted c
blows with Satturs which they were carrying on the head of the deceased.
Sukhdeo received several injuries on his head and his brain matter came out
of his skull. Thereafter all the accused persons ran away towards the east
carrying their Satturs. PWI Vikram Chikane who had witnessed the entire
incident ran towards the direction of Vairag police station. He arrived at the
police station in a frightened condition at about 1.45 P.M. and narrated the D
incident to the police. At 2.00 P.M. i.e. within half an hour of the occurrence
~
of the incident, the police recorded the FIR (Exb.15) of PW! Vikram. In his FIR
Vikram named all the 3 accused and categorically stated that they had assaulted
the deceased on his head with the koytas which they were carrying with them.
E
8. On the basis of the FIR (Exh.15), PWI I Police Sub-Inspector Rajkumar
Kendre registered an offence under Section 307 read with 34 of the !PC and
135 of the Bombay Police Act against all the three accused named in the FIR.
Even while he was recording his FIR he sent his staff members ahead to the

- t
spot of incident for taking the injured to the hospital. He himself followed and
reached the spot of the incident a little later. On reaching the spot he found F
that a lot of blood could be seen on the spot. Two pieces of brain matter and
a piece of a skull were also found on the spot. He saw a goggle, a pair of
slippers, a steel glass and a Rs.10/- note on the spot. He prepared a spot
panchanama (Exh.25) in the presence of panchwitness in respect of the seizure
of the aforesaid articles as well as seizure of blood stained soil. Articles I to
9 produced before the Court were the articles which were seized under the
G
said panchanama. Even before the arrival of PWI I PSI Rajkumar Kendre, the
deceased Sukhdeo had been removed from the aforesaid scene of the offence
by PW3 Avinash, PW4 Anil Mali and one Vilas Sawant. These three persons
had put Sukhdeo in another private jeep and had rushed him towards the
Solapur Civil Hospital. While they were proceeding towards the hospital they H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A saw PW2 Dipak on the way near Naka No.3. The jeep was stopped and Dipak
also boarded this jeep. By that time they reached village Nanaj, they found
that the body of Sukhdeo had cooled. They however, proceeded to Solapur
civil hospital where Sukhdeo was declared dead on admission. While carrying
the body of Sukhdeo the clothes of PW3 Avinash Chikane and Vilas Sawant
B had got stained with blood. Articles 19 & 20 produced before the Court were
the clothes of PW3 Avinash which subsequently came to be attached in the
course of the investigation.

9. At the hospital, the police interrogated Dipak (PW2) and Dipak is said ~
to have narrated that Sukhdeo had been injured near Sub-Registrar's office
C Vairag by the three accused with a Sattur and by a pistol. One Police Head
Constable Abdul Shaikh (Court witness No.I) was then on duty at the Civil
hospital and he was a Police officer to whom Dipak made his disclosure as
aforesaid. (CW!) Abdul Shaikh then prepared an inquest panchanama in
which it was mentioned that Sharad Chikane, Sheshrao Chikane and others
had fired a bullet from the revolver and had caused injuries to Sukhdeo by
D means of a Sattur used for cutting sugarcane. Abdul Shaikh made an entry
in the station diary maintained at the Police Chowky at the Civil hospital. A
copy of this entry was exhibited (Exh. 66) during the trial through the evidence
of (CW I) Abdul Shaikh.

I0. In the meanwhile, (PW! I) PSI Kendre had recorded the statement
E of eight witnesses such as Narsinh Kale, Kamalakar Govardhan and others.
He sent a police party for searching out the accused persons and at 6. I 5 in
the evening accused No. I and accused No.2 were accosted and brought to
the police station. They were arrested under an arrest panchanarna (Exh.50)
conducted between 8.15 hours to I 9.00 hours.
F
I I. At the Civil hospital the post mortem on the dead body of Sukhdeo
commenced at 6.30 P.M. and was completed at 8.30 P.M. The following
external injuries were found on the body of the deceased Sukhdeo :-

(i) Perforating chop wounds over front of head involving forehead
G and frontal regions extending between It frontal (at 2" above It ear)
to back of Rt ear measuring about 14" x 3" cavity deep; vault of skull
is fractured into multiple pieces and cranial cavity is exposed to •
exterior exposing the lacerated brain. Anatomical continuity is lost,
deformity due to disruption of scalp and skull into multiple pieces
present disrupted scalp tissue and fractured bony fragments embodied
H and driven inside the brain and cranial cavity. Damage is irregular and
- 1081
RA!ENDRA PRABHU CHIKANE " STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. (MARKANDEY KA TJU. J.]

j
directed obliquely from It fronto parietal region to the level of nose A
and orbits on centre and upto rt. ear on right side.

- (ii) Oval shaped perforating wound over Rt. side of face in mailer
region I" x 112" ':deep up(o maxillary sinus. Fractured bony fragments
driven inside. No E/o blackening soothing or sinjing.
B
(iii) Irregular perforating injury at base of nose of size 2& 1/2" x 1/2"
cavity deep cutting through nasal bone. Skin flap separated exposing

-
the cutbone associated with fracture underneath involving nasal bone,
~ bones of anterior cranial fossa.

(iv) Contused abrasion over face in between injury No.2, 3 described
associated with extra vassation and fracture underneath.
c
(v) Transversely situated contusion over rateral aspect at rt. side of
neck measuring 3" in length associated with extra vassation underneath
(dark red in colour).

(vi) Incised chop wound over back of head in Rt. occipital region D
vertically situated measuring 4" x 1/2" x cavity deep. Bone cut obliquely
into pieces and driven inwards.

(vii) Chop wound vertically situated behind Rt. ear 3" x 1/2" x bone
deep ends are split injury is crossing injury No.I resulting into E
deformity and loss of anatomical continuity at Rt.ear.

12. The doctor opined that all the injuries were fresh and caused due
to a heavy sharp object. That injury No. I was due to multiple blows in the
same region. He found that there was a fracture of the vault of the skull, base
of the skull and the facial bones with deformity. He found that anatomical F
t continuity was lost in the frontal region of the skull. There was extra vassation
in the right mastoid and right side of ausopotil region. He found a perforating
injury to the vault and partly particularly separated base fractured in anterior
cranial fossa and right occipital bone. The brain matter was lacerated and the
fractured fragments were embodied in brain material involving frontoparietal
lobes on both sides, with subdural haemorrhage all over the brain surface, G
brain stem and cerebellum. Blood clots were present.

13. Apart from the aforesaid internal and external injuries the doctor
who performed the post mortem i.e. (PW8) Ajay Keoliya, noted that reddish
chilli powder like material was found over the chest of the deceased. He
opined that the cause of death was "perforating chop wounds over head and H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A face, associated with fracture, skull, facial bone and cerebral laceration." 'I.
-
14. On 17.9.1999 accused No.I Sharad disclosed that he had parked a

B
two-wheeler Bajaj M-80 vehicle bearing No.MH- I3-C-4157 on the rear side of
the Girls' school at Vairale. The said vehicle was seized under a panchanama
in the presence of two panchas, of which (PW2) Dipak was one of the
panchas. It was the prosecution case that this vehicle had been used by the
-
accused to flee from the scene of the offence. On 17.9.1999 PW3 Avinash and
Vilas Sawant came to the police station and as their clothes were found to

c
be blood stained, they were seized by PW! I PSI Kendre under a panchanama
(Exh.26). On 17.9.1999 PSI Kendre recorded the statement of Dipak PW2. On
18.9.1999 PSI Kendre recorded the statements of several additional witnesses.
Accused No.3 Shashikant was accosted by the police and was produced
).
-
before him. PSI Kendre arrested accused No.3 and seized his blood stains
clothes under a panchanama (Exh.28) in the presence of panchas, one amongst
whom was PW 6 Rameshwar.

D 15. On 19.9.1999 accused No.3 disclosed that he had hidden certain
weapons under a heap of stones near the well of the field of one Nandkumar
within the boundary of village Lado le. Thereafter the police party alongwith
accused No.3 proceeded to the spot disclosed by accused No.3 and discovered
two Satturs kept hidden in a heap of stones. These two Satturs were articles-
25 & 26 produced before the Court. The aforesaid two Satturs were seized
E under a panchanama (Exh.40) in the presence of two panchas, one of whom
was PW9 Bhau Pawar. It may be mentioned at this stage that PW9 did not
support the prosecution case and therefore, this panchanama had to be
proved by the prosecution through the evidence of the Investigating officer.
It was found at the time of the seizure of the weapons that the handles of
F these weapons were blood stained.

16. On 22.9.1999 the Investigating Officer PSI Kendre sent all the accused
to the primary health centre for collection of their blood samples.

17. On 27.9.1999, under his covering letter dated 23.9.1999, 25 articles
G seized during the investigation were sent by the Investigating officer to the
Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for a Chemical Analyser's report. In the
meanwhile, the forensic medical department of the V.M.Medical college had
also sent the red chilli powder like substance for analysis to the Regional
Forensic Laboratory. The blood sample of the accused and deceased were
also sent for analysis to the said laboratory. In due course, the Investigating ~

H officer received C.A. reports in respect of all the articles sent. Two reports
RNENDRA PRABHU CfDKANE "· STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J] 1083

j dated 3 I. I .2000 indicated the finding of the C.A. on the 25 articles and his A
further finding that the red powder found on the chest of the deceased was
in fact chilli (capsicum) powder.

18. The Investigating officer had in the meanwhile, received the post
mortem report. He collected the certified copy of the plaint & complaint in the
litigation pending between the parties. Exh.52 was the certified copy of the B
plaint in RCS No.204/93 and Exh.53 was a certified copy of the complaint filed
by deceased Sukhdeo against accused No. I, accused No.3 and one of their
~ brothers Rajendra. He also collected a copy of the map of measurement in
respect of the disputed land made by TILR and a copy of the sale deed
executed on 16.9.1999 between Shankar Chikane and Sopan Machale. c
19. Ultimately on completion of his investigation, PW 11 PSI Rajkumar
Kendre filed the charge-sheet.

20. At the trial, the Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused
for committing offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 ofIPC and D
under Section 37(i) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The
accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. In order to prove their case the
prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. On an application on behalf
of the accused, Police head-constable Abdul Shaikh was called and examined
as Court witness No.I. On behalf of the defence, two persons claiming to be
eyewitnesses were examined. They were DWI Shridhar and DW2 Tayyab E
Pathan. After recording the statements of all the three accused under Section
313 ofCr.P.C. and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Ilnd Additional
Sessions Judge, Solapur passed his Judgment and order, convicting accused
No. I Sharad and acquitting accused No.2 and accused No.3, as aforesaid.

21. As already stated above, before the High Court accused No. I
F
Sharad Chikane filed an appeal against his conviction, and the State
Government filed an appeal against the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The
High Court found all the three accused guilty under Section 302/34 !PC and
imposed life imprisonment on all three along with fine, as already mentioned
above. G
,.
22. It may be noted that in the FIR all the three accused have been
named as the assailants and this version is corroborated by the testimony of
PW!, Vikram Chikane as well as PW3, Avinash Chikane. They all stated that
accused No. I Sharad Chikane attacked Sukhdeo Chikane on his head and
thereafter all the three accused attacked him on his head with a Sattur, which H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A is scythe like iron instrument used for cutting sugarcane. Thus the evidence ".
of PW! and PW3 is consistent with each other, and also with the F.I.R.

23. The port mortem on Sukhdeo shows as many as seven injuries, as
already mentioned above. Most of the injuries were on vital parts of the body,
i.e. on the head or the neck. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the
B testimony of the eyewitnesses Vikram Chikane and Avin~sh Chika11P.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of
PW2, Dipak Chikane is inconsistent with the testimony of PWl & PW3. He f .._
submitted that PW2 Dipak Chikane's testimony discloses that a firearm (pistol)
was fired on Sukhdeo, but there are no gunshot injuries on the body of
c Sukhdeo. However, a perusal of testimony of PW2 shows that he was not an
eyewitness at all, and he mentioned that Vilas Sawant had informed him that
accused No. I Sharad Chikane had injured Sukhdeo by means of a Sattur and
members of the staff of the Civil Hospital, where the injured was taken, opined
that Sukhdeo was fired by a pistol. Thus, Dipak' s evidence regarding the
D incident is only hearsay and no value can be attached to the same. However,
this does not detract or discredit the testimony of PW! and PW3 which is
consistent with the F.I.R. version and with each other.

25. Learned counsel for the appellant then referred to the evidence of
defence witness Shridhar Machale (DWI), and he submitted that this is in
E conflict with the testimony of PW! and PW3.

26. We have gone through the evidence of DWI Shridhar Machale and
find that it is not reliable at all inasmuch as in his cross-examination he stated
that he did not lodge any complaint in writing to any authority informing the
facts which he had deposed. He did not also make a complaint to anybody
F that the accused were falsely implicated in the case. He has mentioned that 1

he came to know that the accused persons had been arrested for committing
the murder of Sukhdeo. If he was really of the opinion that these accused had
been falsely implicated he would normally have informed the Police and and/
or other persons about it. The fact that he did not do so belies his testimony.
G For the same reason we also reject the testimony of DW2, Tayyab Pathan.

27. A perusal of the testimony of PW! I Rajkumar Kendre, the Police
Sub-Inspector at the Vairag Police Station shows that a Police report was
lodged promptly and all actions were taken soon after the incident. This
witness had seen lot of blood on the spot and two pieces of brain and skull
H and other articles. He had prepared spot Panchnama in the presence of
RAJENDRA PRABHU CHIKANE '· STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J. J 1085
panchwitnesses. He had collected blood-stained soil and simple soil etc. from A
1 the place of the incident. The Sub-Inspector then arrested the accused,

. Sharad Chikane and Rajendra Chikane who had blood-stained clothes. Accused
Shashikant Chikane was interrogated in the presence of panchwitnesses and
he volunteered to discover the weapon used at the time of the offence which
was kept under a heap of stones near the well of a field. He volunteered to
accompany the Police to point out the same. Thereafter accused Shashikant B
Chikane, Rajkumar Kendre (PW! I) and Police staff and panchwitnesses sat
on the Jeep and went to the spot where accused Shashikant Chikane took out
two Satturs kept hidden under a heap of stones.
~
28. We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW! I, the Police
Sub-Inspector. We also find the evidence ofPWI Vikram and PW3 Avinash
c
as credible. The prosecution has thus proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

29. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals
which are dismissed accordingly. If the appellants are on bail, the bail bonds D
shall stand cancelled and they should be taken into custody forthwith to
serve out the sentence.

f B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.

-
>