http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  241 of 2006

PETITIONER: Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe

RESPONDENT: The State of Maharashtra

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

       This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order  of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 17.10.2005 in  Criminal Appeal No.60 of 1992 by which the High Court has affirmed the  sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court by judgment dated  20.2.1992 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as well as fine of  Rs.200/-, in default of which two months R.I. was also awarded. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There were four accused originally before the Trial Court namely (1)  Anil Shivram Pawar, (2) Manilal Hiraram Chaudhari, (3) Premraj HIraram  Chaudhari and (4) Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe (the appellant in the  present case.)  All the four accused had been convicted by the Trial Court  but in appeal the High Court acquitted accused no.1 but maintained the  conviction of accused no.2, 3 and 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34  I.P.C.  In the present case the appellant is only accused no.4 Gangaram  Shantaram Salunkhe @ Bapu.    

       The gist of the prosecution case is that on 13.2.1991 Bhaulal Jadhav  the deceased along with PW4 Lotu Eko Patil was proceeding from  Phuphanagari to Jalgaon on bike Bajaj M-80 and when they reached on a  way to Jalgaon near Khedi Phata at a distance of 3 kms. the appellants, who  were in Maruti Van parked by the side of road got down.  It is further  alleged that the accused no.2, 3 and 4 then stopped vehicle on which Bhaulal  and PW4 were proceeding.  The accused No.3 Premraj caught hold Bhaulal  and accused no.2 and 4 i.e. Manilal and Gangaram assaulted Bhaulal with  knife.  The complainant PW4 then tried to rescue Bhaulal, however, accused  no.2 Manilal extended threats to PW4 and, therefore, PW4 started  proceeding towards Jalgaon.  Bhaulal was also trying to save himself,  however, the accused no.2 and 3 chased him and assaulted with weapon like  knife.  PW4 then immediately went to Taluka Police Station Jalgaon on a  vehicle of some another person.  PW14 Hamid Khan Miya Khan Pathan was  holding charge of Station Diary at the relevant time at about 11.45 a.m..   PW4 then disclosed him about the incident that Bhaulal Jadhav is assaulted  by Manilal, Premraj and one unknown person.  Entry in the Station Diary to  that effect was immediately taken by PW14 and Police Constable namely  Ukhardu Koli, Sharad Vispute and Pramod, who were on duty at Police  Station, were immediately sent to the spot along with PW4, however, by that  time injured Bhaulal Jadhav was taken to the hospital in a tractor by one  Bharat Jadhav as he was also proceeding to Jalgaon and that tractor was also  owned by Bhaulal.  The Police Constable Ukhardu Koli and others and  complainant then proceeded to the hospital.  Doctor from hospital examined

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Bhaulal and declared him dead and, therefore, Police Constable Ukhardu  Koli gave information to the Taluka Police Station approximately at about  12.45 noon about the death of Bhaulal and PW14 thereafter recorded  complaint of PW4 and on the basis of said complaint registered crime  No.16/1991 against the present appellants for the offence punishable under  Section 120-B, 302 read with Sections 34 and 341, 506 of I.P.C.  PW17  Dhanraj Walukar took up the investigation of the said crime.  He visited the  hospital, held inquest over the dead body, referred the same for post mortem,  recorded statements of certain witnesses.  Thereafter investigation of the said  crime was taken over by P.I. PW15 P.S. Suryawanshi who arrested accused  no.1, interrogated him and attached revolver at his instance.  Record further  shows that PW15 thereafter handed over investigation of the said crime to  PW17 who then made attempts to arrest accused, as the accused no.2, 3 and  4 were absconding he succeeded in arresting accused no.2 Manilal only on  22.3.1991.  During the course of interrogation and while accused Manilal  was in the custody of Police he made discloser statement, showed his  willingness to produce the weapon from the place where it was concealed at  Saptashringi Gadh.  Memorandum to that effect is prepared.  He then took  police and panchas to the said place and produced knife.  Even the accused  also showed his willingness to show the place where he burnt blood stained  clothes which were on his person.  He then took police to Nala and shown  the place.  Panchnama to that effect is prepared and burnt articles were  attached by the police.  PW17 then made attempt to arrest accused no.3 and  4, however, their whereabouts were not known and some where in the month  of July, 1991 both accused no.3 and 4 obtained anticipatory bail.  Record  further shows that initially police after completing investigation filed charge  sheet against accused no.1 and 2 showing the accused no.3 and 4 absconding  and after formal arrest of accused no.3 and 4 subsequently charge sheet was  submitted and accordingly two separate cases i.e. Sessions Case No.88/1991  and 196/1991 were registered.   

       The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record convicted the  accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B I.P.C.  which conviction was upheld in appeal by the High Court.

       In this case there are two eye witnesses PW4 and PW5.  As regards  the evidence of PW4, he has stated that at the time of the incident the  accused no.2 Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari and accused no.3 Premraj  Hiraman Chaudhari and one unknown person got down from the Maruti  Van.  He has further stated that the unknown man gave a blow with an iron  sickle on the head of the deceased.  He further stated that thereafter the  unknown man got hold of the deceased and accused no. 2 and 3 inflicted  blows on him with iron knife and sickle.

       It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the name  of the appellant was not mentioned by PW4 hence the chance of false  implication of the appellant in this case cannot be ruled out.

       We do not agree with this contention.  PW4 clearly identified the  appellant as the unknown man in his deposition before the Trial Court, and  there is no reason why PW4 should falsely implicate him.

       The evidence of PW4 is also corroborated by the evidence of PW5,  who is a neutral person being the driver of the Maruti Van.  There was no  reason for PW5 to falsely implicate the appellant.  PW5 has clearly stated in  his evidence that the appellant inflicted wounds on the deceased.

       The evidence of PW4 and PW5 find further corroboration in the dying  declaration made by the deceased to PW6.

       Learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the veracity of the  dying declaration through the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the  post mortem examination.  The Doctor stated that it was possible that after  sustaining the wounds the deceased may have gone into an unconscious state  instantaneously.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

        We note that the Doctor only stated that it was possible that the  deceased may have become unconscious instantaneously.  However, there is  a difference between something being possible and something being  probable or certain.  PW6 before whom the dying declaration was recorded,  stated that the deceased had given his dying declaration before he reached  the hospital.  Thus, we see no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration.

       The evidence in this case is consistent and is corroborated by the  medical evidence.  A few mere minor discrepancies here and there do not  help the case of the appellant.   

There is no force in this appeal.   Hence, it is dismissed.