REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2002                                                  

Rangnath Shamrao Dhas and Ors. ..Appellants

Versus

State of Maharashtra ..Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Bombay High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants  for offence

punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). Two appeals were disposed of by a

common order. Criminal Appeal No.441 of 1985 was filed by the present

appellants  questioning their  conviction  while  Criminal  Appeal  No.608 of

1985 was filed by the State of Maharashtra contending that the appropriate

conviction should have been under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.  

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The informant Murlidhar Krishna Ronge (PW-4) is the son of Krishna

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). At the time of the incident, the

informant, Manik Suryabhan Dhas (PW-5), Vasant Bhagwan Dhas (PW-6)

and the appellants were living in Village Dhas Pimpalgaon within the limits

of  Taluka  Barshi,  District  Solapur.  The  appellants  are  closely

interconnected. Appellants Rangnath and Ganpati are brothers and appellant

Govardhan is their relation. Appellants Narsing and Dattu are also brothers.  

There was enmity between the deceased, the informant on one hand

and the appellants on the other. There were two pieces of land known by the

name of Vanjechi Patti and Chinchechi Patti. The former was admeasuring

two acres and the latter one- and-half acres. The land known as Chinchechi

Patti  originally  belonged  to  one  Atmaram Ronge  and  was  purchased  in

auction by the deceased Krishna. After purchasing it, the deceased started

cultivating it. One Dnyandeo Ronge, who was a tenant of the said land, had

given up his rights. Appellant Govardhan’s niece was married to the son of

2

the said Dnyandeo Govardhan and Dnyandeo wanted that the land known as

Chinchechi  Patti  should be sold without  consideration.  The deceased,  on

account of threats of Govardhan, executed sale deed of that land in favour

of Dnyandeo. About one-and-half years prior to the incident, the marriage of

the  informant  Murlidhar  was  settled  with  the  daughter  of  one  Vithal,

resident  of  village  Dhas  Pimpalgaon.  The  appellants  were  irked  by  this

because they did not want the deceased to settle the marriage of informant

with Vithal’s daughter. The appellants used to also threaten the informant

and the deceased, saying that they should give up the land Vanjechi Patti.

On  22nd  November,  1984  at  about  7.30  a.m.,  the  informant

Murlidhar,  his  father  Krishna  (deceased),  his  labourers  Manik  Dhas  and

Vasant Dhas came to land gat No.98, where crops of sugarcane, jowar and

gram were standing. They started cutting the sugarcane crop. At about 2.00

p.m. all of them had lunch, which was brought by the informant’s mother.

Thereafter,  the informant went to take a round and the deceased Krishna

directed Manik and Vasant to get to the northern side of the field for work.

At about 2.45 p.m., the informant, Manik and Vasant heard the shouts of

Krishna “Melo Melo” (I am dying, I am dying). Consequently, they rushed

towards the place from where the cries were coming. They saw appellants

3

Rangnath and Govardhan armed with swords, appellants  Ganpat,  Narsing

and  Dattu  armed  with  axes,  chasing  Krishna.  They  also  saw  that  they

overtook Krishna in the jowar crop, and thereafter, started assaulting him

with weapons in their hands resulting in his falling down.  The informant

asked them not to assault Krishna and to save him from being assaulted fell

on his body. Thereupon, the appellants stopped assaulting Krishna. When

Manik and Vasant tried to intervene, appellants Rangnath and Govardhan

threatened  them  with  dire  consequences.  Thereafter,  the  appellants  ran

away.

As  a  consequence  of  the  assault,  and  the  informant  falling  down  on

Krishna’s person to save him from being assaulted by the appellants,  the

clothes of Krishna were stained with blood.

After the appellants had run away, the informant Murlidhar brought a

bullock cart, put his father Krishna in the said bullock cart, and proceeded

with  him  to  village  Khadkalgaon.  At  the  outskirts  of  the  said  Village,

Krishna breathed his last. Thereafter, the informant carried the corpse of his

father  to  his  house and proceeded to Pangari  Police Station to lodge the

F.I.R.

4

On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Charges were

framed and as the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. PWs

4, 5 and 6 were stated to  be eye witnesses and placing reliance on their

evidence the trial Court recorded the conviction in terms of Section 304 Part

II IPC and imposed 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.

3. In  appeal  before  the  High  Court  the  primary  stand  was  that  the

offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is not made out and the evidence of

so called eye witnesses is unworthy of credence. It was submitted that the

time as indicated by the eye witnesses is unacceptable because the medical

evidence shows that there was no undigested or semi-digested food. It was

also submitted that the doctor’s evidence clearly showed that the injuries

could not have caused death cumulatively in some cases. That being so, the

conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC is not proper. The High Court held

that the medical evidence did not wholly belie the prosecution version and

did not render the eye witnesses’ version suspect.  The High Court did not

accept  appellants’  stand  and  observed  that  the  doctor  has  given  a

hypothetical answer that in some cases it  might cause death and in some

cases it might not cause death, but stated in clear terms that in the instant

5

case  it  has  caused  death.  The  High  Court  held  that  the  conviction  as

recorded by the trial Court under Section 304 Part II IPC is in order.   

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the parties re-iterated the

respective submissions before the High Court.  

5. It is to be noted that the First Information Report was lodged within a

very short time.  The alleged occurrence took place around 2.45 p.m. and

the FIR was lodged at 7.15 p.m. at the Police Station which was situated at

about 22 K.M. from the place of incidence.  The evidence of PWs 4, 5 and 6

clearly established the complicity of the accused persons. Added to that, as

rightly noted by the High Court the medical evidence is not at total variance

with the ocular evidence.  It was observed in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai

v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1983 SC 484 at para 12) as follows:

“12. Ordinarily,  the value of  medical  evidence is  only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit  the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its  turn  goes  so  far  that  it  completely  rules  out  all possibilities  whatsoever  of  injuries  taking  place  in  the manner  alleged  by  eyewitnesses,  the  testimony  of  the eye-witnesses  cannot  be  thrown  out  on  the  ground  of

6

alleged  inconsistency  between  it  and  the  medical evidence.”

6. In the instant case as noted above the doctor has categorically stated

that the cumulative effect of the injuries was the cause of death. That being

so, the judgment of the High Court affirming that of the trial Court cannot

be  said  to  be  in  any  way  unsustainable.  The  appeal  is  without  merit,

deserves dismissal which we direct. The appellants who were released on

bail  in  terms  of  the  order  dated  3.12.2001  shall  surrender  to  custody

forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.  

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, February 27, 2009

7