Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
16. Sakhubai (PW-4), is sister-in-law of Pushpabai (PW- 3). She also narrated that the incident had occurred around 12 noon. At that time, she was going towards her field. She heard a shout from the side of Goverment well as 'Dhawa Dhawa'. She noticed that fighting was going on in the field of Atmaram. She saw accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 12 were beating Suresh. Farsha and axes were used for the attack. Manoj (A-5) gave an axe blow to Atmaram. She also reiterated that all these persons beat Atmaram. She also affirmed that PW-1, wife of Atmaram and PWs 2 & 3, daughters-in-law of PW-1 were also present at the scene of occurrence. She asserted that she did inform the police that Manoj(A-5) beat Atmaram by axe. She also informed the police that Pramilabai was possessing spade and Manoj was possessing sword. Merely because these statements were not noted by the police, her deposition can not be rejected.
17. It is true that there is some variance in the testimony while describing particular weapon held by the persons and injuries on the body of the deceased. However, as rightly analyzed by the trial Court and accepted by the High Court, the testimony of these witnesses is convincing and trustworthy about the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellants.
18. Medical Evidence It is important to note that the evidence of all these witnesses i.e. PWs-1 to 4 is corroborated by medical evidence. We have already noted that in the said incident, both Atmaram Bohare and Suresh Bohare died. Dr. Satish Humane, PW-7, Medical Officer, KTS Hospital, Gondiya conducted autopsy on the body of Suresh Bohare. He noted the following injuries on the body of Suresh Bohare in Ext.67 [2011) 6 S.C.R. "(i) Deep incised wound – U/3rd (L) lateral side of thigh 4 W' X 1" X MS. Deep (1/2") (ii) Deep incised wound M/3rd (L) Leg. 4" X 1" X MS. Deep (1/2") (iii) Deep incised wound L/3rd (L) Lateral side of leg. 5" X 1 W' X MS Bone vs. deep i.e. Abs. with fracture BB L/3rd (L) Leg. c (iv) lnprint contusion (R) scapular region 3" X1". (v) lnprint contusion (R) intra scapular region 2" X 1" (vi) Abro-contusion (R) memory region Yz" X Yz" (vii) Abro contusion U/3rd (L) F.A. 1" X Yz" (viii) Abrasion – (L) Elbow Jt. 1" X Yz"
19. Dr. Satish Humane noted the following injuries on the body of Atmaram Bohare in Ext. 68 "(i) Incised wound – (R) Frontal region of Head 2 Yz" X %" X bone deep. (ii) Incised wound – (1) Frontal region of Head 2" X %" X bone deep. (iii) Incised wound (L) parietal region of Head 2" X %" X scalp deep. (iv) Incised wound 1/3rd (R) thigh 4" X Yz" X MS Deep (v) Incised wound U3rd (L) thigh 4 Yz" X Yz" X MS Deep (vi) Incised wound M/3 (R) Leg 2" X W' X MS Deep (vii) Incised wound – upper lip 2" X %" X MS Deep (viii) Incised wound – (L) Eyebrow 1 %" X %" X MS Deep (ix) Contusion – (R) Parotid region 2 %" X 2". (x) Abrasions (8) Elbow Jt. 1 %" X 1" each. (xi) Fracture ® frontal & (L) frontal region of Head."
20. About the nature of injuries sustained by Suresh Bohare, Dr. Satish Humane (PW-7) has opined that he died due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries. His Post Mortem report is marked as Ext.67. Insofar as injuries c of Atmaram, PW-7 has deposed that there was fracture of right frontal and left frontal region of the head. There were blood clots under right and left frontal region and left parietal region of head. There was a fracture of right and left frontal region and left pareito temporal reg.ion of skull, intra cranial haemorrhage present in brain, heart was empty, both lungs and other organs were intact and pale. There was no food material in the stomach. Injury Nos. 1 to 8 may be caused by hard and sharp object and 9 & 10 may be caused by hard and blunt object. In his opinion, the said injuries were caused within 18-30 hours before Post Mortem examination and according to him, Atmaram Bohare died due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury.
His Post Mortem report has been marked as Ext. 68. He also explained to the Court that injury on the head of Atmaram Bohare was fatal and sufficient to cause instantaneous death. He further explained that injury Nos. 1, 2 A and 3 coupled with fracture on leg on the person of Suresh Bohare were sufficient to cause instantaneous death. Though an argument was advanced from the side of the appellants that the deceased Suresh Bohare had sustained injuries only on thighs and legs which are not fatal parts of the body, Dr. Satish B Humane (PW-7) has explained before the Court during his cross-examination that there was cutting of major vessels and those injuries were life fatalling. He further deposed that after cutting of major blood vessels, the person may die within 15 to 30 minutes. He also reiterated and asserted that injury Nos. 1, c 2 and 3 on person of Suresh Bohare are collectively sufficient to cause death.
21. The analysis of the statements of PWs 1 to 4 and the assertion of Dr. Satish Humane, PW-7 who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Atmaram Bohare and Suresh D Bohare as well as his explanation as to the nature of injuries with reference to the weapons used by the accused, we hold that the prosecution has established its charge that both the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the incident. We accept the prosecution case and agree with the conclusion E arrived at by the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court. Contradictions in the evidence of PWs
22. Let us consider the argument of the appellants as to F contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. According to the counsel for the appellants, the prosecution witnesses were not consistent with the statements as to the weapons used by the accused persons. He also pointed out that after the statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police, they improved their version before G the court. On these grounds, the counsel for the appellants submitted that no reliance need be giv~n to those witnesses and courts below have committed an error in considering this aspect. We have already adverted to the statements of PWs., particularly, eye-witnesses PWs. 1-4 as to the narration of the incident, overt act of each of the accused persons, weapons handled, injuries sustained by both the deceased Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare as well as medical evidence by Dr. Satish Humane (PW-7) and post-mortem reports marked as Exs. 67 and 68.
In fact, the very same objection was raised before the trial Court and the High Court and while considering s the said objection both the courts analysed their evidence in detail. We also verified and considered their statements with reference to the objection raised by the counsel for the appellants. First of all, the contradictions are minor in nature and not related to the major overt act attributed to each c accused. It is relevant to point out that these persons made statements to the police immediately after the occurrence, i.e., on 29.10.2000 and their evidence was recorded before the court in the month of December 2001 nearly after 1 year. Even otherwise, the prosecution witnesses all are hailing from agricultural family and are villagers, we cannot expect minute details as stated in their earlier statements and before the court. In this regard, it is useful to refer various decisions rendered by this Court as to the minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the admissibility of the same.
23. In Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpa/ Singh & Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 445, this Court has held that despite minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution case therein has not shaken and ultimately accepting their statement set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and restored the sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court.
24. In Sohrab s/o Befi Nayata and Anr. vs. The State of G Madhya Pradesh (1972) 3 SCC 751 about minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, Their . Lordships have held in paragraph 8 as under: " ….. It appears to us that merely because there have been discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of some c or all of the witnesses does not mean that the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be discarded. It is only after exercising caution and care and sifting the evidence to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration, embellishments and improvement, the Court comes to the conclusion that what can be accepted implicates the appellants it will convict them. This Court has held that falseus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered though where the substratum of the prosecution case or material part of the evidence is disbelievable it will not be permissible for the Court to reconstruct a story of .!s own out of the rest. … ."
25. It is clear that not all contradictions have to be thrown out from consideration but only those which go to the route of the matter are to be avoided or ignored. In the case on hand, as observed earlier, merely on the basis of minor contradictions about the use and nature of weapons, injuries, their statements F cannot be ignored in toto. On the other hand, we agree with the conclusion of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court about the acceptability of those witnesses, accordingly, we reject the claim of the appellants as to the same.
26. Ordinarily, the prosecution is not obliged to explain each injury on an accused even though the injuries might have been caused in the course of occurrence, if the injuries are minor in nature, however·; if the prosecution fails to explain a grievous injury on one of the accused persons which is established to have been caused in the course of the same occurrence then certainly the court looks at the prosecution case with a little suspicion on the ground that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the incident. However, if the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy then non-explanation 1of certain injuries sustained by the deceased or injury on the accused ipso facto cannot be the basis to discard the entire prosecution case. In the earlier part of our order, we have adverted to the statement of Dr. Satish Humane who was examined as PW-7. He highlighted ante-mortem injuries suffered by Atmaram Bohare and Suresh Bohare. From his evidence, it is clear that there was fracture of right and left frontal c region of the head of Atmaram Bohare. There were blood clots under right and left frontal region and left parietal region of the head. There was a fracture of right anct left frontal region and left temporal region of skull. In the case of Suresh though it was argued that inasmuch as he sustained injuries on thighs and legs which are not vital parts of the body, the post-mortem doctor (PW-7) has explained before the court that there was cutting of the major vessels and expressed that those injuries were fatal to life. He further explained that after cutting of the major blood vessels a person may die within 15 to 30 minutes. In view of the same, we are unable to accept the statements relating to evidence pertaining to injuries caused by the accused persons.
27. It is true that the disclosure of the weapons by the accused persons were not duly proved as panchas turned hostile. As rightly discussed by the trial Court and the High Court that the accused persons are cultivators and generally they carry with them axes, farshas, sticks, spears etc. In such circumstances if we consider the entire evidence together, the defence plea is liable to be rejected. Special reference to Dilip, A-12
28. Learned counsel for the appellants finally submitted that in the absence of recovery of any weapon from Dilip A-12 and SUPREME COURT R!=PORTS A evidence relating to him is similar to female accused who were all acquitted, in fairness the courts could have acquitted A-12 also. On going through the materials placed, we are unable to accept the said contention. It is true that no weapon was recovered from A-12 but prosecution witnesses implicated him B for causing fatal injuries along with the other accused persons. Considering the evidence of PWs. 1-4, weapons seized from various accused, incised wounds on different body parts coupled with medical evidence clearly implicate A-12 also in the commission of murder. It is not the case of solitary blow but c number of blows by various accused hence the intention and knowledge to cause death has been amply demonstrated and proved.
29. Even otherwise, A-12 was also charged under Section 149 IPC as a member of unlawful assembly with the requisite D common object and knowledge. Inasmuch as the prosecution evidence insofar as women accused are not cogent, their acquittal cannot be applied to A-12 who was in the company of A-1 to A-6. As mentioned above, •1part from conviction under Section 302 Dilip A-12 was convicted under Section 149. E Section 149 creates a specific offence and deals with punishment of the offence. Only thing whenever the court convicts any person or persons of any offence with the aid of Section 149, a clear finding regarding the common object of the assembly must be given and the evidence disclosed must F show not only the nature of the common object but also that the object was unlawful. In order to attract Section 149 it must be shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly.
It must be within the knowledge of the other members as one likely to be committed G in prosecution of common object. If members of the assembly knew or were aware of the likelihood of a particular offence being committed in prosecution of a common object, they would be liable for the same under Section 149. The trial Judge on thorough analysis held that the prosecution has made out a H case against the accused-appellants not only under Section 302 read with Section 149, the prosecution has very well established offences punishable under Section 147, 148 and the accused A-1 to A-6 including A-12 used force and violence being members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of causing death of Suresh Bohare and Atmaram Bohare. The deadly weapons in their hands were axes, farshas, sticks, iron pipe etc. Though there is no recovery of weapon from Dilip A-12 but weapons have been recovered from other accused and prosecution witnesses have asserted that Dilip A-12 gave blow of iron pipe on Atmaram.
The said iron pipe was recovered from the house of Mahadeo which also proved c that A-12 had participated in the offence with such weapon ahd therefore he was rightly punished along with other accused Nos. 1-6 under Section 148 for committing offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons.
30. We are satisfied that the prosecution has established long standing land and water dispute among the deceased and the accused, the evidence of eye-witnesses PWs.1-4 are acceptable, contradictions are trivial in nature and medical · evidence corroborate the assertion of prosecution witnesses. All those materials were correctly analysed and accepted by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. On perusal of all the above said materials, we agree with the said conclusion. In those circumstances, interference by this Court under Article 136 is not warranted. We do not find any error or infirmity or valid legal ground for interference in the order passed by the courts below, consequently, t~e appeal fails and the same is dismissed. N.J. Appeal dismissed.