Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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 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 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 two-wheeler Bajaj M-80 vehicle bearing No.MH- I 3-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 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 c 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.
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 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] 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 B litigation pending between the parties. Exh.52 was the certified copy of the 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 E eyewitnesses were examined. They were DWI Shridhar and DW2 Tayyab 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.
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 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) .._ c was fired on Sukhdeo, but there are no gunshot injuries on the body of 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 that the accused were falsely implicated in the case. He has mentioned that 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 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 B accompany the Police to point out the same. Thereafter accused Shashikant 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.