R.M. Lodha, J.@mdashThe Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, on 29-7-1991 convicted all the accused/appellants for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. The accused/appellants have challenged the correctness of the conviction and the sentenced awarded to them by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 17-7-1986 Kajal (PW 1), his brother Nathu (Since deceased) and two servants Sukhram (P.W. 2) and Chaitram (PW 3) at about 6.30 P.M. in the evening were returning from their agricultural field and going towards their houses. When they reached near the house of Nathu Palasgaye, all the four accused persons namely Prabhudas alias Bablu (A 1), Durodhan (2), Devendra alias Karan (A 3) and Zamsingh alias Ghisu (A 4) assaulted Nathu, brother of P.W. 1 Kajal. A 1 and A 2 both were armed with axes and and A 3 and A 4 were having sticks in their hands. All the four accused persons, A 1, A 2, A 3 and A 4 assaulted Nathu with the weapons in their hands. Nathu who was just behind P.W. 1 Kajal gave a call to save him from the accused/appellants and P.W. 1 Kajal rushed towards him. The accused/appellants continued beating Nathu for 5-10 minutes and A 2 asked P.W. 1 Kajal to run away. The accused persons having found that Nathu was dead, fled away from the spot. A 1 carried axe with him whereas A 2 Durodhan, A 3 Devendra A 4 Zamsingh threw away their weapons on the spot and ran away. P.W. 1 Kajal found number of bleeding injuries on the person of deceased Nathu and the said injuries were on the neck, head and on the face and also on the other parts, P.W. 1 Kajal lodged a written report at Police Station Gangazari on 17-7-1986 at about 11.45 narrating the entire incident. The investigation commenced. The weapons were seized. Spot panchanama (Exh. 30) and inquest panchanama (Exh. 34) were prepared. Autopsy of the dead body of Nathu was conducted by Dr. Kisanlal Prabhudayal Jaipuriya (P.W. 6) on 18-7-1986 at about 12.25 P.M. The post-mortem report of the deceased Nathu is Exh. 36 on the record and reveals that he sustained 11 external injuries and his occipital bone and parietal bone on right side were fractured and brain substance was coming from fracture site and his face was disfigured. According to Dr. Kisanlal Jaipuria (P.W. 6) Nathu died due to injuries on vital organs. Statement of witnesses were recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C. and seized articles were sent for chemical analysis and the C.A. report (Exh. 50) is part of the record. After the investigation was concluded, all the accused persons were sent for trial and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, on 11-3-1991 framed charge against all the four accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with 34, I.P.C. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty. The prosecution led oral as well as documentary evidence. P.W. 1 Kajal, eyewitness and brother of deceased Nathu, P.W. 2 Sukhram, P.W. 3 Chaitram, P.W. 4 Jagan, P.W. 5 Sadashio, P.W. 6 Dr. Kisanlal Jaipuriya, P.W. 7 Radhelal, P.W. 8 Tilakchand and P.W. 9 Laxman were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. As stated above, various documents were also exhibited by the prosecution. Statements of the accused/appellants u/s 313, Cr.P.C. were recorded and all the accused/appellants in their statements submitted that they have been falsely implicated.
3. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, after recording the evidence and hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for defence, concluded that the prosecution has proved that Nathu Jairam Tembhare died of homicidal death and that the accused/appellants were guilty for causing the death of Nathu in furtherence of their common intention and accordingly convicted all the accused/appellants for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced them as aforesaid.
4. We heard Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the accused/appellants and Mr. Kishore Pande, Additional Public Prosecutor, for State at great length and also perused the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel.
5. Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the accused/appellants strenuously urged that according to the prosecution case Kajal (P.W. 1), Sukhram (P.W. 2), Chaitram (P.W. 3) and deceased Nathu were coming together from their filed on 17-7-1986 at about 6.30 P.M. and when they reached near the house of one Nathu Palasgaye, all the accused/appellants were armed with axes and sticks and assaulted Nathu. However, Mr. Daga submitted that P.W. 2 Sukhram and P.W. 3 Chaitram did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Assailing the evidence of P.W. 1 Kajal, the learned counsel for the accused/appellants submitted that he was not eyewitness because he was ahead of deceased Nathu and did not see the incident. Mr. Daga also submitted that Kajal''s evidence could not be accepted because he made only general statements. According to Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the accused/appellants, P.W. 1 Kajal is highly interested witness since he is the brother of the deceased and there are material omission regarding the assault with axes and they are after thought, Mr. Daga assailed the testimony of P.W. 1 Kajal by submitting that he has not seen the beginning of the incident and the motive attributed by him was not proper. On the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1 Kajal, according to Mr. Daga, it cannot be said that as to who caused which of the injuries on the head, resulting into internal damage and death of Nathu and, therefore, on the basis of his testimony, the accused/appellants cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with 34, I.P.C. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused/appellants is that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution because even the A 2 Duryodhan has not used the axe from the sharp edged side but rather what is proved is that these two accused persons A 1 and A 2 used back side of the axes and in this view of the matter, according to Mr. Daga, it cannot be inferred that all the accused/appellants shared common intention to cause death of Nathu, Mr. Daga submitted that the entire evidence of the prosecution does not prove the common intention of all the accused persons to cause the death of deceased Nathu and at best the only intention which can be gathered from the evidence on record is that the accused/appellants shared common intention to cause some injuries on the person of Nathu. In support of his contention, Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the accused/appellants, relied on the decision of the apex Court in
6. Mr. Pande, the Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand supported the finding recorded by the trial Court and submitted that P.W. 1 Kajal was coming along with deceased Nathu and, therefore, he had seen the incident and there is no reason to discard his testimony. Mr. Pande also submitted that all the accused persons had common intention to cause death of deceased Nathu and all of them used respective weapons in their hands and merely because A 1 and A 2 used the weapons from the back side, it cannot be said that the accused persons did not share common intention of committing murder of Nathu. Mr. Pande invited out attention to the post-mortem report and also the evidence of P.W. 6 Dr. Kisanlal Jaipuriya to show the deceased sustained 11 injuries and all these injuries were caused by the accused/appellants. Some of these injuries were on the vital part. Thus Mr. Pande submitted that all the accused/appellants committed murder of Nathu in furtherence of their common intention and the finding recorded by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. In support of his submission, Mr. Pande, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in
7. The learned counsel for the accused/appellants has not disputed the fact that P.W. 1 Kajal was accompanying the deceased Nathu when they were returning from their field on the date of the incident i.e. 17-7-1986 at about 6.30 P.M. In this light when the deposition of P.W. 1 Kajal is seen, there is absolutely no reason to doubt his version. In unequivocal terms he has deposed that while he, his brother Nathu and two servants Sukhram and Chaitram were returning from the field and when they reached near the house of Nathu Palasgaye, all the accused/appellants A 1, A 2, A 3 and A 4 and out of them A 1 and A 2 who were armed with axes and A 3 and A 4 who were armed with sticks assaulted his brother Nathu. Though he was ahead of Nathu by few yards, the moment assault was given to his brother Nathu, Nathu raised the voice to him and he immediately went towards his brother Nathu. All the four accused/appellants continued assaulting and beating for quite some time and A 2 Duryodhan threatened PW 1 Kajal to run away. After seeing that Nathu was dead the accused/appellants fled away. Though A 1 Prabhudas carried away axe with him, the other three accused persons left the other axe and sticks at the place of the site. Nathu sustained number of bleeding injuries on his neck and also other parts of body. His face was disfigured. P.W. 1 Kajal lodged a written report at Police Station Gangazari at about 11.45 P.M. The Police Station is about 18 k.m. away from the place of incident and thus it is apparent that the report was lodged by P.W. 1 Kajal without any loss of time. P.W. 1 Kajal has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused/appellants at great length and despite incisive cross-examination he has withstood his testimony and barring immaterial omissions, we do not find that the deposition of P.W. 1 Kajal at all has been shaken in his cross-examination. P.W. 1 Kajal is brother of deceased Nathu and is a close relative. He will not implicate the persons who are not connected with the crime and rather want that the real culprits are brought to book. The deposition of P.W. 1 Kajal is thus natural and his version and account of incident given in the Court is reliable and could be well acted upon. P.W. 1 lodged the written report without any loss of time at the concerned Police Station at about 18 km. away and the First Information Report lodged by him also corroborates the evidence of marker of the report i.e. P.W. 1 Kajal.
8. P.W. 6 Dr. Kisanlal Jaipuria who was working as Medical Officer in B.G.W. Hospital, Gondia at the relevant time conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Nathu on 18-7-1986 at about 12.25 P.M. During the autopsy, he found the following injuries on the dead body :
"1. Lacerated wound 4 inches x 1 x 1 1/2 inches in occipital region.
2. Lacerated wound 4 1/2 inches 1 1/2 inches, 2 inches above injury No. 1.
3. Lacerated wound 2 inch x 1 1/2 inch on parietal region-right side.
4. Lacerated wound 3 1/2 inch x 2 1/2 inch below Chin on left side (trachea open carotid artery lacerated and large veins lacerated).
5. Lacerated wound 4 x 1 1/2 inches in front of right ear, right pinna, cut into two pieces.
6. Lacerated wound 3 1/2 inches x 1 inch cutting right angle of month and also lower lip.
7. Lacerated wound 1 x 1/2 inch on right shoulder.
8. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 inch on right hand 2 inches above elbow.
9. Lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 inch just below right nipple.
10. Fracture lower jaw present.
11. Fracture upper jaw present.
P.W. 6 Dr. Jaipuriya also found internal injuries namely occipital bone and parietal bone on right side fracture, and brain substance was coming from fracture site. According to him all the above injuries were ante mortem and cause of death was due to injuries to vital organs. He has proved post-mortem report Exh. 36 prepared by him, During the cross-examination he reiterated that even single injury on the vital organs independently was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the face of the deceased was disfigured but was still identifiable. He admitted that the injuries were not incised injuries.
9. No manner of doubt is left after going through the post-mortem report Exh. 36 and deposition of P.W. 6 Dr. Kisanlal Jaipuria that Nathu died of homicidal death and due to injuries caused on his person by the accused/appellants. Though A 1 Prabhudas and A 2 Duryodhan were armed with axes, it is clear from the injuries caused to deceased Nathu that back side of that axes was used by A 1 and A 2 and as a result thereof the deceased sustained multiple lacerated wounds at different parts of the body and also fracture on occipital bone and parietal bone on right side and fracture on upper and lower jaw was present.
10. Much capital was sought to be drawn by Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the accused/appellants from the fact that though two of the accused/appellants were armed with axes, they did not use sharp edged side and only assaulted by the back side of the axes and that the accused/appellants had no common intention to cause murder of Nathu. The learned counsel, for the accused/appellants emphasised had the accused/appellants decided and intended to commit murder of Nathu, A 1 and A 2 would have used axes from the sharp edged side and not from the back. We are afraid, no merit is found in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellants. Though two of the accused/appellants were armed with axes and the said axes were used from the back side, the manner in which the injuries have been caused and the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased Nathu leads to the irresistable conclusion that the said injuries were caused in furtherence of their common intention and such injuries were in the ordinary course of nature sufficient to cause death. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, number of injuries caused to the deceased Nathu by the accused/appellants and the fact that two of such injuries resulted in the fracture of occipital bone and parietal bone on right side and the fact that brain substance was coming from fracture site and entire face of deceased Nathu was disfigured, conclusively lead us to infer that the accused/appellants in furtherence of their common intention caused the aforesaid injuries to Nathu and the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. P.W. 6 Dr. Kisanlal Jaipuriya has in unequivocal terms deposed that even single injury on the vital organs independently was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. No doubt is left, therefore, in holding that the accused/appellants acted in furtherance of their common intention to cause such injuries on the person of Nathu and the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It has also come in the evidence that Nathu died on the spot. We are fortified in our view from the judgment of the apex Court in the case of
11. Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant relied upon the decision reported in
12. Consequently we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same must fail and is dismissed accordingly.
13. Appeal dismissed.
