Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.699 OF 2016
Yogesh Ramdas Bachhav ]
Age 25 years, Occu: Service ]
C/o. Govind Damodar Mane ]
R/o. Shrikrishna Colony No.2, ]
Kalewadi, Pimpri, Pune 17. ]
(At present lodged at Yerwada ]
Central Prison, Pune) ] Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ]
(Vide Sessions Case No.655 of 2011 ]
Arising out C.R. No.217 of 2010 ] registered at Chinchwad Police ]
Station, Pune) ] Respondent
…..
Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, for Appellant.
Ms. P.P. Shinde, A.P.P
, for Respondent-State.
…..
JUDGMENT
1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges a judgment and order of conviction dated 18th February, 2015 passed by the learned 1 of 17 SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.655 of 2011 by which he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C”) and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. He has also been convicted of the offence punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Lastly he has been convicted of an offence punishable under section 309 of the I.P.C and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentenced were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows.
3. Appellant – Yogesh Bachhav was the cousin, in the sense, son of maternal uncle of deceased Jyotsna. The deceased Jyotsna was a 2 of 17 resident of Mulgaon, District Nashik. In the year 2010, she was studying in third year Engineering (Computer Science) in Dr. D.Y. Patil Engineering College, Akurdi, Pune. P.W.[1] – Sadhana was her friend and classmate. They were roommate also. The appellant had one sided love with the deceased Jyotsna. He used to threaten her as well as her parents insisting upon them to perform her marriage with him. Due to such threats, the deceased as well as her parents were under stress. Deceased Jyotsna had, obviously, narrated all these facts to P.W.1-Sadhana.
4. On 1st September, 2010, at about 6.30 p.m, deceased Jyotsna and P.W.[1] – Sadhana went to Gurdwara Chowk on the Scooty of Jyotsna for a breakfast. When they were proceeding, the appellant approached them on his motorcycle and obstructed the Scooty. He asked deceased Jyotsna whether she wants to marry him. He had also threatened to kill her. Upon her refusal, he threatened to commit suicide.
5. On 2nd September, 2010, deceased Jyotsna told P.W.[1] – Sadhana that she received a phone call from her father who informed her that the appellant sent him a message asking him to 3 of 17 perform his marriage with deceased Jyotsna. The said message was forwarded to Jyotsna by her father. Jyotsna had shown the said message to P.W.[1] – Sadhana also.
6. On the fateful day of 3rd of September, 2010 at about 8.00 a.m, Jyotsna and P.W.[1] – Sadhana were proceeding to their college on the Scooty bearing registration No.MH-15-CR-3270. Mess was situated on the way to their college. When both of them reached near the Mess situated by the side of Dhanvantari Hospital, Gurudwara, Chinchwad, Pune, deceased Jyotsna stopped the Scooty. P.W.[1] – Sadhana alighted from the Scooty and was proceeding towards the Mess. All of a sudden, the appellant came over there by his motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-41/H-
2225. He took out a sickle and a knife from the dickey and immediately inflicted a blow of sickle on the person of deceased Jyotsna. She fell down. The sickle also fell down. The appellant thereafter whipped out the knife and inflicted multiple blows on her neck, chest and abdomen. P.W.[1] – Sadhana made a hue and cry and asked the appellant not to assault Jyotsna. In that melee, the appellant had also inflicted blows of knife in his abdomen and he too fell on the road. When P.W.[1] – Sadhana tried to help Jyotsna, 4 of 17 the appellant inflicted blow of knife on her left thigh. She sustained bleeding injury.
7. By that time, the passers by assembled over there. P.W.[2] – Kedar Birajdar who was a friend of P.W[1] – Sadhana and Jyotsna found them lying on the road in an injured condition and, therefore, he immediately carried P.W.[1] – Sadhana to Paras Clinic, Bijlinagar, Chinchwad, Pune. Jyotsna was taken to Y.C.M Hospital, Pimpri where she was declared dead by the Doctors.
8. P.W.[3] – Sandeep Rikame also noticed the incident. Somebody had informed the Police. Within short time, the Police arrived on the spot. They took injured appellant to Lokmanya Hospital, Nigdi, Pune. P.W. 5 – Dr. Kiran Bhise, examined the appellant and performed surgery.
9. P.W.7- Mahesh Joshi, then Senior Police Inspector attached to Chinchwad Police Station visited Lokmanya Hospital, Nigdi on receiving the information. He recorded the statement of P.W.[1] – Sadhana. He visited the scene of occurrence. A crime bearing No.217 of 2010 was registered against the appellant. After 5 of 17 investigation, he laid charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri committed case to the Sessions Court as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
10. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge in terms of (“Exhibit 2”) for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307 and 309 of the I.P.C and under section 4/25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It was read over to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
11. No defence witness has been examined on his behalf. However, it was his defence that P.W.[3] – Sandeep Rikame had love affair with deceased Jyotsna and he threatened the appellant prior to the incident.
12. Next line of his defence is that father of deceased Jyotsna instructed P.W.[3] – Sandeep Rikame to keep watch on the appellant and not to allow him to speak with deceased Jyotsna. 6 of 17
13. It was also the defence of the appellant that grandmother of deceased Jyotsna had some white patches on her person and, therefore, the appellant’s marriage with deceased Jyotsna had been broken.
14. Lastly, it is his defence that somebody had assaulted deceased Jyotsna and when he intervened, he sustained injuries. In so far as injuries sustained to P.W.[1] – Sadhana are concerned, it is the defence of the appellant that those injuries were due to the accident of the scooter.
15. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and meticulously analyzing and scrutinizing the same, the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that murder of deceased Jyotsna was committed by the appellant by assaulting her with sickle and knife. It has also been held that the appellant was the author of the injuries on the left leg of P.W.[1] – Sadhana with an intention to kill her as well as the appellant even attempted to commit suicide at the same time and place. 7 of 17
16. The learned Trial Judge, however, held that the appellant had not contravened the provision of section 25 of the Arms Act or breached an order lawfully promulgated by the Commissioner of Police, Pune under section 37 (1) of the Bombay Police Act.
17. We heard Ms. Kuttikrishnan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Shinde, learned A.P.P at a considerable length. We have also meticulously gone through the entire evidence on record.
18. As a matter of fact, after arguing for some time, learned Counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that there is absolutely nothing in the impugned judgment by which it can be inferred that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly and correctly appreciated evidence of the prosecution witnesses in so far far as the murder of deceased Jyotsna is concerned as well as an attempt to murder P.W.[1] – Sadhana and even an attempt to commit suicide by the appellant himself. However, with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we have scanned the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 8 of 17
19. Undoubtedly, deceased Jyotsna died a homicidal death which is evident from the testimony of the injured eye witness P.W.[1] – Sadhana (“Exhibit 15”) coupled with the autopsy report. Her evidence indicates that on 3rd September, 2010, at about 7.45 a.m she was going to the College on a Scooty along with deceased Jyotsna. On the way to the College, there was a Mess and, therefore, they stopped near the Mess. P.W.[1] – Sadhana went towards the Mess. When she just reached near the door of the Mess, the appellant came over there on a motorbike, took out a sickle and knife and started assaulting deceased Jyotsna on her neck and back. P.W.[1] – Sadhana shouted for help and asked the appellant not to assault, however, the appellant continued, due to which, deceased Jyotsna fell on the ground. The appellant thereafter stabbed himself by the same knife. When P.W.[1] – Sadhana tried to lift Jyotsna, the appellant stabbed on her left leg and then again stabbed deceased Jyotsna six to seven times till she died on the spot. A futile attempt has been made by defence to rebut her testimony.
20. The testimony of P.W.[1] – Sadhana has been duly corroborated by P.W.[2] – Kedar Birajdar (“Exhibit 17”) who reached the spot 9 of 17 immediately after the incident. He is the witness who carried P.W.[1] – Sadhana to the Hospital. According to this witness, he noticed the appellant, deceased Jyotsna and Sadhana lying over there in an injured condition. Even P.W.[3] – Sandeep Rikame (“Exhibit 18”) specifically deposed that while proceeding towards the College by the road around 8.00 a.m, on that day, he noticed deceased Jyotsna and P.W.[1] – Sadhana who had stopped their Scooty. The appellant came over there from behind and assaulted deceased Jyotsna, due to which, she fell down. He further corroborated the testimony of P.W.[1] – Sadhana that when P.W.[1] – Sadhana tried to intervene, the appellant assaulted her too. This witness has further testified about stabbing of the appellant to himself and lying on the ground in an injured condition. Testimony of both these witnesses remained unshattered during the course of their cross-examination by the defence. Both these witnesses appear to be chance witnesses and we do not find anything to doubt their version. They even had no axe to grind against the appellant.
21. There is one more witness viz: P.W.[4] – Manisha Choudhari (“Exhibit 20”) who runs a Mess. At the relevant time, after hearing the sound of door bell, when she opened the door, she saw P.W.[1] – 10 of 17 Sadhana saying “maru nakos Yogesh”. She further testified that when P.W.[1] – Sadhana took Jyotsna on her lap, the appellant inflicted a blow on her lap and all the three were lying on the ground. Thus, there is hardly any scope or reason to disbelieve not only the testimony of P.W.[1] – Sadhana who herself had been assaulted by the appellant at the relevant time but also of P.W. 2 – Kedar Birajdar and P.W. 3 – Sandip Rikame.
22. P.W. 6 – Dr. Milind Sonawane (“Exhibit 28”) conducted postmortem of deceased Jyotsna on the same day and noticed fourteen external injuries as mentioned in column No.17 of the postmortem report. He opined that cause of death was “traumatic and haemorrhagic shock due to rupture of liver, stomach and mesentry with huge haemo-peritoneum due to multiple stab injuries with fracture of ribs and mandible”. Those injuries could be caused by sharp and cutting instruments like knife and sickle. He further opined that the external injury Nos.2,3,5,6,[7] and 8 with corresponding internal injuries are sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature. Autopsy report is proved at (“Exhibit 29”). 11 of 17
23. Thus, having assessed the evidence of an injured witness P.W.[1] – Sadhana as well as the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon - P.W.[6] – Dr. Milind Sonawane, we have no doubt to hold that it was the appellant who, with an intention and full knowledge, committed murder of Jyotsna by inflicting multiple blows by means of sickle and knife on vital parts of her body. Indeed, it was a gruesome and ghastly murder committed by the appellant merely because deceased Jyotsna turned down his offer of marriage.
24. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Admittedly, Jyotsna was studying in I.T engineering at D.Y. Patil Engineering College, Akurdi along with P.W.[1] – Sadhana. Both were classmates and roommates for about six months prior to her death. About a month or prior so to the incident, deceased Jyotsna informed P.W.[1] – Sadhana that the appellant was threatening her to marry him and, therefore, she was under tension. Her evidence further indicates that on 1st September, 2010, when she was going for a breakfast along with deceased Jyotsna to Gurudwara Chowk on the Scooty of deceased Jyotsna, the appellant obstructed their Scooty and threatened Jyotsna in her presence that if she refuses to marry him, 12 of 17 he will kill her and also commit suicide. Thereafter, he went away. Deceased Jyotsna, therefore, sent a message to her father on 2nd September, 2010 which was shown by her even to this witness and also the reply sent by her father. It is quite evident from the testimony of P.W.[1] – Sadhana that on the fateful day of the incident, when the appellant all of a sudden started assaulting deceased Jyotsna with sickle and knife by inflicting blows on her person, she shouted “Yogesh, you should not assault”. She further testified that when deceased Jyotsna fell on the ground, the appellant stabbed himself with knife. P.W.[1] – Sadhana tried to lift Jyotsna and asked her that she should fight, at that time, the appellant stabbed on her left leg and again stabbed Jyotsna till she succumbs to the injuries.
25. Now, turning to the evidence of P.W.[5] – Dr. Kiran Prabhakar Bhise (“Exhibit 21”) who had examined the appellant after he was brought to Lokmanya Hospital, Nigdi, Pune on 3rd September,
2010. The appellant was in an injured condition. At the time of his examination, he was conscious and well-oriented. He narrated the history of self inflicted injury. Accordingly, this witness recorded it in the MLC case paper. External injury on the person of the appellant was in the form of injury on peritoneum, breach deep 13 of 17 over left upper abdomen, mid clavicular line having size 2 c.m x 2 c.m and, another injury on peritoneum breach by over right side of abdomen at the level of umbilicus in mid clavicular line having size 1 c.m x 1 c.m. and other small wound on lateral part of same wound. He further testified that the Investigating Officer recorded statement of the appellant and video-graphed it. Hospital’s O.P.D record, admission of the appellant and the treatment given to him is proved at (“Exhibit 23”). It has been established that all the injuries sustained by the appellant were self inflicted and were possible by a sharp and pointed instrument like knife. Injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature, if not treated timely. The testimony of this witness also remained unshattered during cross-examination.
26. Evidence of P.W.[7] -Mahesh Madhukar Joshi (“Exhibit 33”) mainly indicates manner in which the investigation was conducted by him. It is needless to venture into the details of his testimony as regards recording of statements of P.W.[1] – Sadhana, collection of other materials from the scene of occurrence, clothes of the deceased Jyotsna, appellant and P.W.[1] – Sadhana, forwarding all the collected muddemal to the Forensic Science Laboratory etc. 14 of 17
27. It would be expedient to see the C.A reports (“Exhibit 36”) which reveal blood group of the appellant as “O” while blood group of the deceased as “B” and blood group of P.W.[1] – Sadhana as “A”. Jeans pant and half “T” shirt of P.W.[1] – Sadhana was found with blood having group “A”, “B” and “O”. This fact corroborates the evidence of P.W.[1] – Sadhana that when she took Jyotsna on her lap, the appellant stabbed on her lap. At that time, the appellant himself was injured, and obviously, blood group of all the three viz: P.W.[1] – Sadhana, deceased Jyotsna and the appellant i.e “A”, “B” and “O” respectively were found on those clothes.
28. C.A report (“Exhibit 36”) indicates that clothes of deceased Jyotsna having blood stains of “B” group which belonged to her. Report regarding D.N.A test (“Exhibit 40 to 43”) also corroborates the said fact.
29. Thus, from the testimonies of the eye witnesses viz. P.W.[1] – Sadhana, P.W.[3] – Sandeep Rikame and P.W. 4 – Manisha Choudhari, it is crystal clear that they were the eye witnesses as well as natural witnesses to the incident. They had no grudge or axe to grind against the appellant and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. 15 of 17
30. Cumulative and combine effect of all the aforesaid evidence is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that on the fateful day of 3rd September, 2010, it was the appellant who brutally assaulted and killed deceased Jyotsna by means of a knife and sickle. He stabbed on her stomach, neck and chest, due to which, she sustained injuries to her vital organs. Consequently, she died on the spot. Similarly, he assaulted P.W. 1 – Sadhana on her lap, thereby causing grievous injury. As per the opinion of P.W. 5 – Dr. Kiran Bhise, the injuries sustained by P.W.[1] – Sadhana, in the ordinary course of nature, were sufficient to cause death, had she not been treated timely. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C.
31. Turning to the aspect of attempt to commit suicide by the appellant, as already discussed, P.W.[1] – Sadhana and P.W.[3] – Sandip Rikame testified about it, which needs no repetition. Even the evidence of P.W. 5 – Dr. Kiran Bhise, as already discussed, indicated that it was a self inflicted injury by the appellant which was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature, had it not been treated timely. A cumulative effect of the evidence of P.W.[1] – Sadhana and evidence of P.W.[5] – Dr. Kiran Bhise coupled with the 16 of 17 statement given by the appellant himself in the hospital, there is every reason to believe that he attempted to commit suicide. Ingredients of section 309 of the I.P.C have been precisely attracted.
32. Having taken into consideration the entire facts, circumstances and evidence on record, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Trial Court.
33. There are no omissions and contradictions on record. Consequently, the appeal is sans merits and as such, stands dismissed. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]