-1-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Receivedon:04012006

Registeredon:10012006
Decidedon:15112014
Duration:YMDays
081011

INTHECOURTOFADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE1,
JALGAON
(PresidedoverbyD.J.Shegokar)
SessionsCaseNo.8of2006

CentralBureauofInvestigation

Versus

} COMPLAINANT

RajuChintamanSonawane(Mali)}
Age28Years.R/oBurhanpur
}
Dist.Burhanpur.
}
MadhyaPradeshState
}

Exh.No.737

ACCUSED

Mr.D.N.Salvi,SpecialPublicProsecutorforC.B.I
Mr.S.K.Kaul,AdvocateforAccused

Chargeu/sSection302&120BoftheIndianPenalCode

Judgment
(Deliveredon15thNovember,2014)
1]

AccusedRajuChintamanSonawane(Mali)ischarged

fortheoffencepunishableundersections302and120Bofthe
IndianPenalCode.

-2-

2]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Brieflystated,theprosecutioncaseisasunder:
That, Shri Vishram G. Patil (hereinafter referred as

'Victim')wasservingasaProfessorinEnglishatNutanMaratha
College, Jalgaon. He was also Leader of CongressI Party. On
21092005atabout 7.15a.m.,victimlefthouse,forgoingto
CollegebyMarutiCarNo.MH19R05.TheCarwasproceeding
by Kuchha road leading towards JalgaonDhule National
Highway.Intheway,nearNetraDeepProvisions,atManrajPark,
twounknownpersons(whoarelateridentifiedasaccusedRaju
Chintaman Sonawane and accused Raju Pundlik Malil ) pelted
stoneontheCar.WhenthevictimgotdownfromtheCar,oneof
themcaughtholdthevictim.Theanothergaveblowsofknifeon
theabdomen,chestandneckofthevictim,asaresultofwhichhe
sustainedinjuriesandcollapsedonground.Thereafter,boththe
assailantsfledawayfromtheSpotonaHeroHondaMotorcycle.
One Mahendra Panditrao Mahajan and Rambhau Gobru Pawar
witnessed the incident. The crowd gathered on the Spot of
incident. Mahendra Panditrao Mahajan rushed to the house of
victim and gave information about the incident to his wife
Smt.RajaniPatil. SheimmediatelycametotheSpotofIncident.
Withthehelpofsomepersons,Smt.RajaniPatiltooktheinjured
toHospitalofDr.Bhangale,thentotheTraumaCenterofDr.Rajesh
Jain. Lastly the injured was taken to Civil Hospital Jalgaon,
whereMedicalOfficerdeclaredhimdead.

-3-

3]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

OnthebasisofComplaintfiledbyMahendraPanditrao

Mahajan, an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code came to be registered at Jilha Peth Police
Station,JalgaonvideCrimeNo.242of2005againsttwounknown
persons. The Police started investigation of the crime. A .P .I
Mr.S.G.Shinde visited the Spot of Incident. One Slipper (i.e.,
Footwear)ofrightleg,oneHandkerchief,YellowMetalBracelet
andthreepiecesofblackcolourHelmetofCommandoCompany
were found lying on the Spot. API Shinde prepared Spot
Panchnama and seized the aforesaid articles in presence of
Panchas. The samples of blood mixed soil and plain soil were
collectedfromtheSpot.AnInquestPanchnamaoftheDeadBody
of victim was prepared in presence of Panchas. As per the
requisitionofPolice,theMedicalOfficerconductedpostmortemof
thedeadbodyofvictim. TheMedicalOfficer opinedthatthe
Victim '' died due to shock due to hemorrhage due to multiple
injuries ''. The Panchnama of Maruti Car of the Victim was
preparedinpresenceofPanchas.TheInvestigationOfficerseized
one Slipper ( i.e., Footwear) of left leg and a File containing
papersfromthesaidMarutiCarunderthesamePanchnama.The
statements of witnesses came to be recorded. Accused Raju
Chintaman Sonawane and accused Raju Pundlik Mali ( now
deceased ) were arrested on 25092005 under Arrest
Panchnamas.
4]

On27092005accusedRajuMali(nowdeceased)

wasinPoliceCustody. Hevoluntarymadedisclosurestatement

-4-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

beforetheInvestigatingOfficerinpresenceofPanchas. Onthe
basisofsaiddisclosurestatement, Knifeusedforcommissionof
CrimewasdiscoveredandseizedinpresenceofPanchas.Onthe
sameday,hevoluntarilymadedisclosurestatementinpresenceof
Panchas.Onthebasisofit,theMotorcycleusedincommissionof
offence was discovered and seized from the Parking Place of
RailwayStation,Bhusawal.
5]

TheInvestigatingOfficercollectedCDRofPublicCall

Center of village Kingaon from the BSNL Office. According to

prosecution,itwasrevealedtherefromthataftercommissionof
offence,accusedRajuPundlikMali(nowdeceased)andaccused
Raju Chintaman Sonawane were in telephonic contact with
accusedLiladharPurushottamNarkhedeandDamodarJagnnath
Lokhande.Accordingtoprosecution,itwasalsotranspiredinthe
investigationthat,theMotorcyclepurchasedbyaccusedLiladhar
Purushottam Narkhede was used for commission of crime.
Therefore,accusedLiladharPurushottamNarkhedeandDamodar
JagnnathLokhandecametobearrestedon22122005.
6]

According to prosecution, it was transpired in the

investigation that, accused Liladhar Purushottam Narkhede and

DamodarJagnnathLokhandehadgivencontract ofcommission
of murder of Victim to accused Raju Pundlik Mali and accused
RajuChintamanSonawane. Hence,C.I.D.Nashikfiled Charge
SheetagainstaccusedRajuPundlijkMali(nowdeceased),Raju
Chintaman Sonawane, Liladhar Purushottam Narkhede and

-5-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Damodar Jagnnath Lokhande u/s 302 and 120B of the Indian

PenalCodeaswellasu/s3r/wsection25oftheArmsActon
22122005.
7]

As perorderpassedin ApplicationNo.298 of2006

and 3331 of 2005 dated 03022006, the Hon'ble High Court

pleased to quash the proceedings filed by CID Nashik against
accusedLiladharPurushottamNarkhedeandDamodarJagnnath
Lokhande.
8]

The widow of Victim filed Writ Petition No.646 of

2005 before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the Order dated
27022007passedtherein,thedirectionsoffurtherinvestigation
u/s173(8)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureweregivenandthe
investigation of the crime was entrusted to Central Bureau of
Investigation(hereinafterreferredasC.B.I.).Accordingly,C.B.I.
registered FIR No. BSI/2007/S/002 on 15032007. The C.B.I
startedfurtherinvestigationintheCrime.
9]

In view of Writ Petition No.1278 of 2008 (filed by

Smt.RajaniPatil),theHon'bleHighCourtstartedmonitoringthe
investigationofthecrime.
10]

Inthemeantime,accusedRajuPundlikMalireported

tobedeadon06042007. Therefore,mylearnedPredecessor
Smt.U.S.ThakreabatedthetrialagainsthimbypassingOrderon
Exh.No.1dated30042007.

-6-

11]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

TheC.B.IfiledFirstSupplementaryChargeSheeton

10062008 and Second Supplementary ChargeSheet on

06102008 u/s 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
According to C.B.I., it was transpired in the investigation that
accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane, Raju Pundlik Mali (Now
deceased ), Liladhar Purushottam Narkhede and Damodar
Jagnnath Lokhande made conspiracy and committed murder of
thevictim.
12]

AsperOrderpassedonApplicationExh.No.610dated

07072014,GajendrasingNarayanPatilandUlhasVasudeoPatil
havebeenarrayedasaccusedu/s302and120BoftheIndian
PenalCode.
13]

ThenewlyarrayedaccusedGajendrasingNarayanPatil

and Dr. Ulhas VasudeoPatilhave challengedthe legalityofthe

Orderu/s319oftheCodeofCriminalProcedurepassedagainst
them before the Hon'ble High Court vide Criminal Revision
ApplicationNos.165of2014and166of2014respectively.,Asper
theinterimOrders passedby Hon'ble HighCourt thereindated
15072014 and 18072014, the proceedingsagainst the newly
arrayedaccusedarestayedtillthisdate.
14]

BypassingOrderonExh.No.1dated12032009,my

learned Predecessor ( Smt.U.S.Thakre ) separated the trial of

accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane from accused Liladhar
PurushottamNarkhede&DamodarJagnnathLokhande.

-7-

15]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

On 15102009, my learned Predecessor (Shri

R.S.Kharkar ) framed Charge against accused Raju Chintaman

Sonawaneu/s302,120BoftheIndianPenalCode. TheCharge
wasreadoverandexplainedtohiminMarathi.Hepleadednot
guilty and claimed for trial. The defence of accused Raju
ChintamanSonawaneisthatheisfalselyinvolvedintheCrime.
16]

In order to bring home guilt to the accused, the

prosecutionhasexaminedinall46witnesses.
17]

As per the order passed by my Predecessor

(Mr.P.D.Ambekar)onApplicationExh.No.523dated30042013,
theevidenceofwidowofvictimSmt.RajaniVishramPatilandone
ShridharVishnuChaudharihasbeenrecordedasCourtWitness
Nos.1and2atExh.Nos.575&589respectively.,
18]

AccusedRajuChintamanSonawanedidnotenterinto

witnessBox. However,hehasfiledsomedocumentsalongwith
List Exh.No.701. These documents are (i) Affidavit of Police
InspectorN.S.Gughedated15042009filedbeforeHon'bleHigh
Court; (ii) Copy of the Statement of Smt.Rajani Vishram Patil
dated21092005;(iii)Copiesofinformationsuppliedunderthe
Right to Information Act; (iv) the Issue of Daily Marathi
Newspaper'Lokmat'dated22102005;(v)PublicComplaintfiled
before Collector, Dhule dated 06092009. However, Accused
Raju Sonawane did not examine any witness for proving those
documents.

-8-

19]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane has examined

SunilBhimsenKhadeinhisdefenceasDWNo.1atExh.No.706.
The evidence of this witness is on the point of the location of
GujralPetrolPump,thedistancebetweenManrajParkandGujral
PetrolPumpandtheroadsgoingtowardsPimpralafromGujral
PetrolPump.
20]

As per the Common Order passed on Application

Exh.Nos.709 and 715 ( filed by Accused Raju Chintaman

Sonawane ) dated 30092014, the Court has conducted Local
Inspection of the Spot of Incident on 09102014. The
MemorandumofLocalInspectionaccompaniedwithSketchMap
isatExh.No.718.
21]

The Written Notes of Arguments filed by Mr.Salvi,

learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI are at Exh.No.738

and 732. The sum and substance of arguments is that the
prosecutionhasprovedchargeu/s302and120BoftheIndian
Penal Code againstaccused Raju ChintamanSonawane, beyond
allreasonabledoubts.Therefore,heisliableforconviction.
22]

TheWrittenNoteofArgumentsfiledbyMr.S.K.Kaul,

learned Advocate for accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane is at

Exh.No.729.Thesumandsubstanceofhisargumentsisthatthe
prosecution has failed to prove charge against accused Raju
ChintamanSonawane,beyondallreasonabledoubts. Therefore,
heisentitledforacquittal.

-9-

23]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

The following points arise for my determination. I

haverecordedfindingstheretoalongwithreasonsasunder:

Points

Findings

(1) Whethertheprosecutionhasproved
thatProf.VishramG.Patildied
homicidaldeathon21092005?

...

Yes

(2)

WhethertheProsecutionhasproved
thaton21092005atabout7.30a.m.
nearNetraDeepProvisionsat
ManrajPark,Jalgaonaccused
RajuChintamanSonawaneand
accusedRajuPundlikMali(now
deceased)assaultedProf.Vishram
G.Patilbyknifeandintentionally
orknowinglycausedhisdeath?
...Yes
(3)

WhetherProsecutionhasproved
thataccusedRajuChintaman
SonawaneandaccusedRaju
PundlikMali(Nowdeceased)
hatchedconspiracyand
causedthedeathofProf.
VishramG.Patil?
...
(4)

24]

WhatOrder?

Yes

...Asper
finalOrder.
REASONS

AstoPointNo.1:
Itisnotindisputethatinthemorningof21092005,

Victimsustainedmultipleinjuriesonvitalpartsofhisbodyand
succumbed to it within few minutes. The Prosecution has
produced the Inquest Panchnama of the condition of the dead

-10-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

bodyofvictimatExh.No.302.ThisInquestPandchnamaisproved
byPWNo.3ManojNarayanWani(Exh.No.301).Thiswitnesshas
testifiedthat,thedeadbodyofProfessorV.G.Patilwaskeptona
cement platform in the Postmortem Room at Civil Hospital,
Jalgaon.Theclothesonthedeadbodywerestainedwithblood.
The Neharu Shirt (Art.''2'') on the dead body was removed.
BelowtheNeharuShirt,therewasBaniyan(Art.9). Thereafter,
Payjama(Art.10)onthedeadbodywasremoved.Thereafter,the
Underwear(Art.11)ofthedeadbodywasalsoremoved.Itisin
the evidence of PW No.3 Manoj Wani that, there were injuries
above, on the center below chest, above the naval, and the
abdomen. There was also cut injury on the neck. The
postmortemofthedeadbodywasconducted.Itisintheevidence
ofPWNo.3ManojVanithatInquestPanchnamaExh.No.302was
preparedbeforehimanditbearshissignature.PWNo.39Police
Inspector Y.D.Patil (Exh.No.414) has testified that the Inquest
PanchnamaofdeadbodyofVictimwaspreparedbyhim. Thus
the Prosecution has duly proved the Inquest Panchnama of the
deadbodyofVictim.
25]

PW.No.28Dr.PankajUttamraoSaindane(Exh.No.383)

isAutopsySurgeon.HeisM.B.B.S(DArtho).Hewasservingas
Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon at the relevant time.
Thiswitnesshastestifiedthat:
''On21092005,thedeadbodyofdeceasedV.G.Patil
wasreceivedatCivilHospital,Jalgaonatabout10.40hours. It
was identified by one Vijay Narayan Wani. He carried out

-11-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

postmortemonthedeadbodyonthesamedaybetween10.45to
11.45hours.AsperevidenceofDr.PankajSaindane,thefollowing
sevenexternalinjurieswerefoundonthedeadbodyofdeceased
VishramG.Patil:
(1)

Stabwoundonneckanteriorly
sizeabout7inchesx1.1/2inches
x3Cmdeep.Edgesclean.

(2)

Stabwoundonneckanteriorly
belowNo.(1)Injurysizeabout
2.3/4incheslong&superficial.

(3)

Stabwoundonabdomenjustbelow
theXipisternumsizeabout1inch
xcm.Peritoneumdeep.

(4)

Stabwoundonabdomenonleftside
sizeinchesxcm.

(5)

Stabwoundonabdomenjustabove
umbilicus.Size1.1/2inchesxCm.
Partofintestineprotrudingoutof
thewound.Peritoneumdeep.

(6)

CLWonrightkneebelowpatella
size1.1/2inchesx1cm.

(7)

Stabwoundonabdomenonright
side.Size1.1/4inchxcm.
Peritoneumdeep.

Edgesofallstabwoundwereclean.
26]

AsperevidenceofDr.PankajSaindane,thefollowing

internalinjurieswerefoundonthedeadbody:

-12-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

(1)PleuraPale,haemothoraxonleftside.

(2)Larynx,tracheaandbronchi
Pale,Tracheatransectedatthyroid
cartilagelevelduetoWoundNo.1.
(3)LeftlungPale,leftlunglaceratedduetostab

WouldNo.3,Leftlungcollapsed.
(4)LargeVesselsRightCorotidOrterytransected
duetoInjuryNo.1.
(5)WallsStabwoundpresentonabdomen

mentionedinColumnNo.17.
(6)PeritoneumPale,iliacmesentrytear.
(7)Cavityhaemoperitoneum.
(8)DesophagusTransectedduetoInjuryNo.1.

(9)SmallintestinesanditscontentsThrough

andthroughperforationduetostabwound
onabdomen.

(10)LargeintestineanditscontentsThrough

andthroughperforationduetostabwound
atcoecumlevel.

27]

TheabovementionedExternalandInternalInjuriesare

describedinMemorandumofPostmortemExamination(Exh.No.
384).ItisdulyprovedbyPWNo.28Dr.PankajSaindane.
28]

PWNo.28Dr.PankajSaindanehastestifiedthat the

injuries sustained by deceased V.G.Patil were antemortem in

nature.Theexternalandinternalinjurieswereinterlinkedwith
eachother. PWNo.28Dr.PankajSaindanehastestifiedthatthe

-13-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

injuriessustainedbyvictimProf.V.G.Patilweresufficienttocause
hisdeathintheordinarycourseofnature. PWNo.28Dr.Pankaj
SaindanehasalsoprovedtheDeathCertificateExh.No.385. As
per the opinion given by PW No.28 Dr.Pankaj Saindane, the
deceased died due to shock due to hemorrhage due to above
multipleinjuries. Itisnotthecaseofdefencethatthedeathof
Victimisaccidentalorsuicidal.Therefore,Ihavenohesitationto
hold that, the prosecution has proved that, the victim died
homicidaldeathon21092005.Thus,Irecordaffirmativefinding
toPointNo.1.
AstoPointNo.2:
29]

As discussed above, the prosecution has proved that

victimdiedhomicidaldeathon21092005.Therefore,thecrucial
question which arises for determination is, who inflicted the
injuriesonthepersonofvictim. Onthispoint,theProsecution
has examined two eye witnesses i.e., PW No.1 Mahendra
PanditraoMahajanandPWNo.16RambhauGobruPawar.
30]

PWNo.1MahendraPanditraoMahajan(Exh.No.255)

isFirstInformant.AccordingtoProsecution,heisalsoeyewitness
totheincident.Thiswitnesshastestifiedthat:
''Theincidenttookplaceon21stSeptember,2005.
Onthatday,aftercompletionofduty,Iwasgoing
tomy house bybicycle. Iwasproceedingfrom

-14-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Premnagar area of Jalgaon city. At Premnagar

area, the road was high, therefore, I got down
frombicycleandstartedgoingbyroadalongwith
mybicycle. Atthattime,IwastowardsManraj
ParkComplex. IsawoneMarutiWhiteCarwas
standingthereandinfrontofthesaidCar,three
personswerefightingwitheachothers.Amongst
them, one person was wearing Nehru Shirt and
Paijama. At that time, by highway trucks were
passing,therefore,Icouldnotseewhathappened
there. After reducing traffic, I crossed highway
andhadgonetoothersideofhighway.Thattime,
Isawtwopersons were comingon HeroHonda
Motorcycle.MybicyclecrossedtheirHeroHonda
Motorcycle. Outoftwo,onehastoldme, Sarak
Madarchod (ljd eknjpksn). Therefore, I saw
towards the person who were sitting on
Motorcycle. Out of them, the person who was
driving the Motorcycle was tall and the person
who was sitting as pillion rider had wear white
colourHelmet.Thesaidpillionriderwasholding
knifewhichwasstainedwithblood.Thereafter,I
sawtowardsMarutiCarandthenIsawthatthe
personwhowaswearingNehruShirtandPayjama
was lying on the ground near Maruti Car.
Thereafter,Igavecalltostoptothepersonswho
wereproceedingonHeroHondaMotorcycle,but

-15-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

the said persons have drove their Motorcycle

towards GujrahPetrol Pump. Thereafter, I have
gone to the Spot where the person wearing
Payjama and Nehru Shirt was lying. I was
intendingtotakethatinjuredpersontohospital.
But I saw that intestine of the said person has
comeoutofstomach.Thereafter,Iputintestineof
said person in stomach and tried to lift him, at
thattime,Inoticedthattheneckofsaidperson
wascut.Thereafter,IchasedthesaidHeroHonda
Motorcycle. OnthenumberplateofMotorcycle,
mudwasaffixed. WhenIwaschasingsaidHero
Honda Motorcycle by Highway, I was crying
''TyanaPakda,TyaniKhunKela'',(R;kauk idMk] R;kauh

[kwu dsyk)butnobodyhelpedme.Ichasedthesaid
HeroHondaMoorcycleuptotheBoardofnameof
Colony Shriratna Colony. Thereafter, said
MotorcyclehadgonetowardsGujralPetrolPump,
soIstoppedchasingsaidMotorcycle.Thereafter,I
returned to the Spot where murder had taken
place. Mob was gatheredthere. Fromthesaid
mob, the voices were coming ''V.G.Tatya
V.G.Tatya(Ogh th rkR;k] Ogh th rkR;k).Thereafter
I came to know that it is same person V.G.Patil
whosemurderhastakenplaceandtowhomIwas
knowingbyname. ThenIrequestedthepersons
of the Mob to help me to take injured to the

-16-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

hospital,butnoneofthemhelpedme.Thereafter,
IwasknowingthehouseofV.G.Patil,soIhadgone
tohishousebybicycle. WifeofV.G.Patilopened
thedoorandIinformedherthattwopersonshad
assaulteduponV.G.Patilandranaway.Thereafter,
wife of V.G.Patil and myself were coming to the
Spot by crying'' Tatyana Marle Tatyana Marle
''(rkR;kauk ekjys] rkR;kauk ekjys).Thereafterwife
of V.G.Patil has taken V.G.Patil in the Car to the
hospital of Dr.Bhangale and I remained on the
Spot.Policeinquiredabouttheincident,thattime
IhaveshownmyreadinesstogivemyComplaint.
I informed to police that injured was taken to
hospital. Thereafter, police vehicle proceeded
towards hospital. In the hospital of Dr.Bhangale
wewereinformedthatinjuredwastakentoCivil
Hospital,Jalgaon.ThenIreachedtoCivilHospital,
Jalgaon.InCivilHospital,Jalgaonpolicerecorded
myComplaint''.
31]

As discussed above, PW No.1 Mahendra Panditrao

Mahajan has fully corroborated and proved the contents of the

FirstInformationReportExh.No.256.
32]

It has come in cross examination of PW No.1

MahendraPanditraoMahajanthathewitnessedtheincidentfrom
the distance of 200 to 250 feet. He saw three persons while

-17-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

assaultingeachother.Heisunabletostateoutofthree,whowas
assaultingtowhom.Thiswitnesshasdeniedthesuggestionputto
himbydefencethathedidnotwitnesstheincident.
33]

PW No.16 Rambhau Gobru Pawar (Exh.No.351)

testifiedasunder:
'' Incident took place on 21092005. I boarded
S.T.BusonabovedayatAnchaleTandatogotovillage
Mukti, which is 3 Km away from my village.
Thereafter,IcametoJalgaoninatruckfromMukti.I
cametoJalgaonat7.00a.m.atGujrahPetrolPump.
AnilMistrywasaMesonwhoismyrelativeandhe
was residing at Pimprala,Jalgaon which is Km
awayfromGujralPetrolPump.WhileIwasgoingby
walk at Pimprala, on the way near Netradeep
Provisions, I saw a white Maruti Car. I saw two
Helmet wearing persons quarreling with another
person who wore Kurta and Payjama. Out of two
Helmetwearingpersons,onewastallandanotherwas
short.ThepersonwearingKurtaPayjamawasasking
the other two persons as to why he was being
assaultedbythem. Thereafter,Helmetwearingshort
personbymeansofknifeassaultedontheabdomenof
the person wearing Kurta Payjama, as a result of
whichthesaidvictimfellonground.Thetwopersons
wearingHelmetstriedtobowdownandintheirsaid
attempt,theirHelmetsfellontheground.Therefore,

-18-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Icouldseetheirfacesvividly.Thetallpersoncaught
holdboththehandsoftheinjuredandmadehimto
standandhethenaskedanotherpersonsaying''jktq

ekj] ;nh ;g cp x;k rks viuk lkjk jkt [kqy tk;sxk vkSj
viu Hkh ugh cpsaxs I tried to intervene, but I was
threatened by the short person. The short person
namely Raju asked me to leave the Spot and he
threatenedmethatifIfailedtoleavetheSpot,thenI
wouldbesimilarlyassaultedbythemliketheinjured.
ThepersonnamelyRajuwhowasshort,againcame
near the injured, and cut the neck (throat) of the
injured by means of knife. I tried to intervene the
above incident, but short person namely Raju
threatened me that he would assault me like the
injured. Thetallpersonaskedmeto leavetheSpot
sayingthatmanybigleaderswerebehindhimnamely
Ulhas Patil, G.N.Patil and Ramesh Chaudhari.
Thereafter, both the persons left the Spot on Hero
HondaMotorcycle.
34]

PWNo.16RambhauPawartestifiedthat:
''Onepersonridingonbicyclealsotriedtoobstructthe
persons who assaulted the injured, but he was also
abusedbythemand,therefore,hekeptquite. Many
personsgatheredthere.OneladywearingSareealso
camethereandshetooktheinjuredalongwithherin
thesameMarutiCar. Therewaswhisperingonthe

-19-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

spotthattheladywasthewifeoftheinjured.Injured
wastakentoCivilhospital.Policealsogatheredinthe
CivilhospitalandIdisclosedtheincidenttopolice.I
wastakeninthepolicestationonsamedaybypolice''.
35]

PW No.36 Police Head Constable namely Gopal

Baliram Chaudhari has testified that he resides at Plot No.28,

ManrajPark,Jalgaon.On21092005atabout7.30hours,hewas
fetchingwater.HeheardnoisefromthesideofShoppingCenter,
near Manraj Park. Therefore, he rushed there. He found that
Professor V.G.Patil was lying in the pool of blood. He had
sustained sharp cutting injuries on his abdomen and throat.
RajanitaiandherrelativesweregatheredontheSpot.Hecarried
ProfessorV.G.PatilinaCaratthehospitalofDr.Bhangale.Onthe
say of Dr.Bhangale, he carried the injured at Trauma Center of
Dr.RajeshJain.Dr.RajeshJainandDr.RajeshBhangaleexamined
injuredV.G.Patilanddeclaredthathewasnomore. Thereafter,
thebodyofV.G.PatilwastakentoCivilHospital,Jalgaon.Hegave
saidinformationfromhisCellPhonetothePoliceOfficialsatJilha
PethPoliceStationandLocalCrimeBranch,Jalgaon.
36]

The Court Witness No.1 Smt.Rajani Patil ( Exh.No.

575)iswifeofvictim. Shehastestifiedthaton21092005at
about 7.15 a.m., her husband( i.e., victim)left the house for
goingtoNutanMarathaCollegebyCarbearingregistrationNo.
MH19/R05. After his departure, within 10 minutes, one
Mahendra Pandit Mahajan came to her house. He gave

-20-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

information to her that her husband has been murdered in the

wayatsomedistancefromherhouse. Therefore,sherushedto
theSpotofIncident.Shenoticedthatherhusbandwaslyingby
thesideofroadininjuredcondition.Therewascutinjurytohis
neck.Therewerealsomultipleinjuresonhisabdomenandchest.
Withthehelpofsomepersons,sheputvictiminhisownCarand
tookhimtothehospitalofDr.Bhangale. Dr.Bhangaleexamined
thevictimintheCaritself.Dr.Bhangaleadvisedherfortakingthe
victimtoRajeshTraumaCenter.Accordingly,shetookthevictim
atRajeshTraumaCenter,Jalgaon.Somepersonstookthevictim
insidethehospital.Aftersometime,shelearntthatherhusbandis
no more. The aforesaid evidence of Court Witness No.1
Smt.Rajani Patil has gone unrebutted during her cross
examination.
37]

PW No.39 Police Inspector, Yadavrao Damu Patil

(Exh.No.414) has testified that he was attached to Jilha Peth

Police Station,Jalgaon from 31122004 to 31052006. On
21092005, at about 7.30 hours., he received a telephonic
message from Police Constable Gopal Chaudhari that, Professor
V.G.Patil has been assaulted by some unknown persons at the
corner of Manraj Park. The condition of Professor V.G.Patil is
critical and he has been taken to the hospital of Dr.Bhangale.
PoliceHeadConstableVikasPatilalsogavesimilarinformationto
him. Therefore,herushedtotheSpotofIncidentinPoliceJeep
alongwithPSIChaudhariandotherstaff.

-21-

38]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

PW No.39 Police Inspector Shri Y.D.Patil has further

testifiedthat''onreachingtotheSpot,hewasapprisedbyoneeye
witnessthattheincidentwasseenbyhimandthetwounknown
personswhoassaultedProf.V.G.PatillefttheSpotonHeroHonda
Motorcycle towards Gujral Petrol Pump. He also gave brief
description of the person who was sitting pillion rider on the
Motorcyclethathehadworeredcolourshirtandwasarmedwith
Jambiya. The said person spoke that he tried to stop the
Motorcycle of those two persons, but they took Motorcycle
speedilytowardsPetrolPump. Iaskedthenameoftheabove
personandhedisclosedthathewasMahendraPanditMahajan.''
39]

PW No.39 Police Inspector Shri Y.D.Patil has further

testified that Policemen were appointed to guard the Spot of

Offence. The Informant Mahendra Mahajan was taken to the
hospitalofDr.Bhangale.Lateron,helearntthattheinjuredwas
referredtoTrauma Centerand lastly at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon.
TheDoctorsexaminedProfessorV.G.Patilthatdeclaredthatheis
dead.
40]

PW No.39 Police Inspector Shri Y.D.Patil has further

testifiedthattheReportgivenbyMahendraMahajanwasreduced
intowritingasperhissayvideExh.No.256.Onthebasisofit,the
offence vide Crime No.242 of 2005 u/s 302 r/w section 34 of
I.P.Codewasregistered.ItisintheevidenceofPWNo.39thatAPI
ShindewasdirectedtopreparetheSpotPanchnama. PWNo.39
hasprovedInquestPanchnamaExh.No.302.

-22-

41]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

PW No.20 Police Constable B.No.1586 Jayant

Bhanudas Chaudhari ( Exh.No.360) is Photographer of Police

Department.Asperevidenceofthiswitness,asperdirectionsof
Police Inspector Y.D.Patil, he took 13 Photographs of the dead
bodyofthevictimand9photographsoftheSpotofIncident,by
DigitalCamera.Thiswitnesshasprovedallthese22Photographs
whicharecollectivelymarkedatArt.''18.
42]

PW No.9 Ranjit Sandu Khadke (Exh.No.319) is a

Panch on Panchnamas Exh.No.320 & 321. This witness has

testifiedthat,oneMarutiCarwasseenbyhiminthepremisesof
ZillaPethPoliceStation.It'sfrontWindSheetwasfoundbroken.
OneSlipper(i.e.,Art.'3')andPlasticBagscontainingsomeFiles
wereseizedbyPolicefromthesaidCar.Accordingly,Panchnama
waspreparedbeforehimvideExh.No.320.Itisintheevidenceof
PWNo.9thatonthesameday,Policealsoseizedtheclothesof
deceasedProf.V.G.Patilbeforehim,underPanchnamaExh.No.321.
This witness has identified Baniyan Art.'9' and Payjama Art.'10'
before the Court. The evidence of this witness has gone un
rebuttedduringthecrossexamination.Hence,Ifindnoreasonto
disbelievethesame.
43]

PW No.42 Police Head Constable B.No.2112 namely

BashirNajirTadvi,(Exh.No.432)hastestifiedthaton21092005,
he was attached to Jilha Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. As per
OrderExh.433,hewaspresentondutyatCivilHospital,Jalgaon
onthatday.Afterpostmortem,hehandedoverthedeadbodyof

-23-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Professor V.G.Patil to his brother Sadashiv Patil, as per

acknowledgmentExh.No.434.
44]

PWNo.16RambhauGobruPawarfurthertestifiedthat:
''On 8112005, I was called in Sub Jail for test
identification parade purpose. I was taken in
identification room in Sub Jail where 7 persons
were found standing, besides the Magistrate and
Panchas.IntheParade,IidentifiedoneRajuMali
whohad takenposition at Sr.No.2 intherowof
dummieswhohadcaughtholdboththehandsof
theinjuredandaskedtheotherpersontoassault
the injured. The said Raju is not present today
before the Court. I was then taken out of the
identificationroomandagainafter20minutes,I
wasbroughtinsidetheidentificationroom.Atthe
2nd time,IviewedtheParadeandafterobserving
the parade, I identified the person who was
standingatSr.No.4oftherowandhewasaccused
Raju who had assaulted the injured on his
abdomenandneck(throat)byknife([katj).The
saidRajuispresenttodaybeforetheCourt''.

45]

PWNo.16RambhauPawarhasidentifiedaccusedRaju

Chintaman Sonawane before Court and testified that he is the

same person who assaulted victim by means of knife on his

-24-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

abdomen, chest and throat. PW No.16 has also identified the

Knife(Art.15)beforeCourtandtestifiedthatitisthesameknife
whichwasusedinthecommissionofoffence. Thiswitnesshas
alsoidentifiedseizedKurta&PayjamaofthevictimbeforeCourt.
46]

It has come in the cross examination of PW No.16

Rambhau Pawar, that he saw the incident from the distance of

9 to 10 feet. He went from Gujral Petrol Pump towards
NetraDeep Provisions by walk. He denied the suggestion that
before holding of Test Identification Parade, he had seen the
photographofaccusedinnewspaper. Hedeniedthesuggestion
that he is habitual witness of Police. It has come in cross
examinationofPWNo.16RambhauPawarthat,whileleavingthe
Spot,thetallpersonwasdrivingtheMotorcycleandhewasRaju
Mali. IthascomeintheevidenceofPWNo.16RambhauPawar
that,theincidentdated21092005isaspecialincidentinhislife
andassuchhehasnoteddownthesameinhisDiary.

47]

PW No.19 Jaywant Kailash Patil (Exh.No.359) has

testifiedthat:
''Intheyear2005, I was takingeducation in 1st
yearPolytechnicMechanicalinSureshDadaJain
Polytechnic College, Jalgaon. I used to go to
Collegeat7.30hoursanditusedtobeclosedat
1.30pm.IusedtoattendCollegeonbikeofmy
friend. I used to go to the College through
VidyanagarbyKaccharoadonbikeofmyfriend.

-25-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Onthedayofincident,IstartedgoingtoCollege
at7.00a.m.withmyfriendAmolPatil.Atabout
7.00 a.m., when we reached Vidhya Nagar, we
foundtwopersonsontheVarandahofNetradeep
Provisions. One of the persons was wearing
Helmetandanotherwasfoundstandingandhe
waslookingtowardsMobileorwristwatch.The
person who was found sitting on the Varandah
waslessinheightthanthepersonwhowasfound
standing.
48]

PW No.19JaywantKailash Patil hasfurther testified

that:
''After 2225 days, I was called in Sub Jail by the
Police to act as a witness in test identification
parade. Itwasnoontime. AccusedRajuMaliwas
identifiedbymefrom7personswhowerestanding
inrow.IwasagaincalledintheSubJailandatthat
time,accusedRajuSonawanewasidentifiedbyme
fromthedummies.AccusedRajuSonawaneistoday
presentbeforetheCourt,whowasfoundsittingon
theVarandahnearNetradeepProvisions''.
49]

IthascomeincrossexaminationofPWNo.19Jaywant

Patilthathesawboththepersonswithinaminute.Hedeniedthe
suggestion that he frequently used to meet Police Inspector
Y.D.Patil in connection with the incident. He denied the

-26-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

suggestion that he used to attend the Court whenever accused

wereproducedbeforeCourtforseekingtheirremand.Hedenied
thesuggestionthathecouldnotseethefacesofthetwopersons
astheywornHelmetsontheirheads. Hedeniedthesuggestion
thatoneofthePanchgavehinttohimand,therefore,heidentifed
accusedRajuSonawaneinT.I.Parade. Hedeniedthesuggestion
thatthevictimwashisrelativeand,therefore,heisdeposingfalse.
50]

PW No.27 Balasaheb Murlidhar Wagchaure

(Exh.No.379)hastestifiedthat,hewasservingasaTahsildarat
Jalgaonintheyear2005.Aspertheletterdated10102005,he
hold Test Identification Parade at District Prison, Jalgaon on
15102005.AroomnamedasKaladalanwasmadeavailableby
JailorforholdingtheTestIdentificationParade.Thiswitnesshas
furthertestifiedthatsixDummieslookingsimilartoaccusedRaju
Mali were selected from Prisoners for the Test Identification
Parade.Theywereaskedtostandinrow.AccusedRajuMaliwas
alsoaskedtotakehispositionintherow. ThewitnessJaywant
Patil was outside the T.I.Parade Room. He was called through
PanchWitness. WitnessJaywantPatilwasaskedtoidentifythe
suspect.HeidentifiedaccusedRajuMali,whowasstandinginthe
rowatSerialNo.4.ThewitnessstatedthataccusedRajuMaliwas
standingnearNetraDeepProvisionsonthedayofincident,atthe
relevant time. The witness was asked to leave the T.I Parade
Room. Thereafter,accusedRajuMaliwasinformedthathecan
change his clothes and also change his position in the row of
Dummies.AccusedRajuMalichangedhisplaceindummies,but

-27-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

didnotchangehisclothes.ThenextwitnessMahendraMahajan
wasbroughtintheidentificationRoom,buthecouldnotidentify
thesuspect.Thereafter,accusedRajuMaliwassentbacktoPrison
andDummieswerealsoasked. PWNo.27BalasahebMurlidhar
Wagchaure has further testified that thereafter accused Raju
Sonawane was brought to T.I.Parade Room. A precaution was
takenthathecouldnotbeseenbythewitnesses. Thedummies
similarlookingtoaccusedRajuSonawanewereselectedfromthe
Prisoners and were brought to T.I.Parade Room. The dummies
were asked to stand in row and accused Raju Sonawane was
asked to take his position in the dummies. Initially, witness
Jaywant Patil was brought in the Identification Room. He
identifiedaccusedRajuSonawane,whowasstandingatSr.No.2in
the row. The witness Jaywant Patil told that accused Raju
SonawanewasfoundsittingalongwithaccusedRajuMalionthe
dayofincidentnearNetraDeepProvisions.ThewitnessJaywant
Patiladdedthathewasoriginallyresidentofthesetupoftheface
ofaccusedRajuSonawane.ThewitnessJaywantPatilwasasked
to leave the T.I Parade Room. In the meantime, accused Raju
Sonawanewasinformedthathecanchangehisclothesandhis
placeintheDummies.ThenextwitnessMahendraMahajanwas
broughtintheIdentificationRoombythePanch.Buthecouldnot
identifytheculprit.ItisintheevidenceofPWNo.27Balasaheb
Waghchaure that he prepared the Memorandum of this Test
IdentificationParadevideExh.No.380anditscontentsaretrue&
correct''.

-28-

51]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

PW No.27 Balasaheb Murlidhar Wagchaure has

furthertestifiedthat,ontherequestofInvestigatingOfficer,the
nextT.I.ParadewastakenbyhiminKaladalanRoomofDistrict
Prison, Jalgaon. The witness was asked to sit in the Office of
Jailor. He andPanchas wentintheT.I.Parade Room. Accused
Raju Mali was brought in T.I.Parade Room. The Six dummies
lookingsimilartoaccusedRajuMaliwereselectedfromPrisoners.
Thedummieswereaskedtostandinrow.AccusedRajuMaliwas
askedtotakehispositioninthedummies.Hewasalsoaskedto
change his clothes. Thereafter, witness Rambhau Gobru Pawar
wasbroughtintheT.I.ParadeRoombyoneofthePanchas. He
identifiedaccusedRajuMaliwhowasstandingatSerialNo.2in
therow. ThewitnessRambhauGobruPawarsaidthataccused
Raju Maliwasthesameperson,whocaughtholdthehandsof
victimfrombacksideandwasgivingdirectionstohisAssociateby
saying'' ekj jktq ekj] cpuk ugh pkfg, ''. WitnessRambhauwas
askedtositintheJailor'sRoomandaccusedRajuMaliwassent
backtoPrison.Thereafter,accusedRajuSonawanebroughttothe
T.I.ParadeRoom. Sixdummieslookingsimilartohisfacewere
selectedfromthePrisoners.AccusedRajuSonawanewasasked
totakehispositionindummies.OneofthePanchwasaskedto
bring witness Rambhau in T.I.Parade Room. The witness
Rambhau Pawar identified accused Raju Sonawane who was
standing at Sr.No.4. The witness Rambhau Pawar said that
accused Raju Sonawane is the same person who assaulted the
victimbymeansofknifeonhisneckandabdomen. Itisinthe
evidenceofPWNo.27BalasahebWagchaurethataccordinglyhe

-29-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

prepared Memorandum of Test Identification Parade vide Exh.

No.374.Itbearshissignatureanditscontentsarecorrect.
52]

PW No.27 Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate Shri

BalasahebWaghchaureidentifiedaccusedRajuSonawanebefore
theCourt.
53]

PW No.30 Dharmraj Bhagwan Sonawane

(Exh.No.388)isthewitnessonTestIdentificationParade. This
witnesshastestifiedthatbeforeaboutfiveyears,hewascalledto
actasaPanchatDistrictPrison,Jalgaon.TheTestIdentification
ParadewastakenbeforehiminaHallinsidetheJail.Oneperson
identifiedthepersonwhowasstandingatSr.No.2intherow.As
perevidenceofthiswitness,inthesecondpartofT.I.Parade,one
witnessidentifiedthesuspectwhowasstandingatSr.No.4inthe
row.ItisintheevidenceofPWNo.30DharamrajSonawanethat
the Magistrate prepared Memorandum of T.I Parade vide
Exh.No.374. Itbearshissignatureanditscontentsaretrueand
correct.
54]

PW No.30 Dharamraj Sonawane identified Accused

RajuSonawanebeforetheCourtandtestifiedthatheisthesame
person who was standing at Serial No.4 in the row and was
identifiedbythewitnessinT.IParade.
55]

PWNo.25MohanShiwajiSonawane(Exh.No.373)&

PW No.29 Rajesh Bhalerao Gurav (Exh.No.387) are Panch

-30-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

WitnessesofTestIdentificationParade.Theyhavesupportedthe
prosecutiononthepointofholdingofTestIdentificationParadeof
accusedRajuPundlikMali(nowdeceased)andRajuChintaman
SonawaneatDistrictPrison,Jalgaon
56]

PWNo.38MadhukarKisanChaudhari(Exh.No.412)is

aretiredPolicesubInspector. Thiswitnesshastestifiedthaton
21092005, he was Police Station Officer at Jilha Peth Police
Station.Onthatday,atabout7.25hours,PoliceHeadConstable
VilasPatilgaveinformationtohimontelephonethat,oneperson
has been assaulted by means of knife, behind Manraj Park.
Therefore,herushedtotheSpotbyPoliceJeepalongwithPolice
ConstableMarathe. MobgatheredontheSpot. Oninquiry,he
learnt that the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon.
Therefore, they immediately rushed to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon.
Injured V.G.Patil was declared dead there. It is in evidence of
PW No.38 Madhukar Chaudhari that, Mob gathered at Civil
Hospital. One Mahendra Mahajan (I.e., PW No.1) claimed
himself as eye witness. Therefore, he recorded Report of
Mahendra Mahajan in the premises of Civil Hospital premises
itself vide Exh.No.256. PW No.38 Madhukar Chaudhari has
furthertestifiedthatasperthedirectionsgivenbyPoliceInspector
Y.D.Patil,onthebasisofReportExh.No.256,heregisteredoffence
videCrimeNo.242of2005u/s302r/wsection34oftheIndian
PenalCode.PWNo.38MadhukarChaudharihasfurthertestified
thatCarofV.G.PatilwasparkedinthepremisesofJilhaPethPolice
Station.AsperdirectionsgivenbyPoliceInspectorShriGhuge,he

-31-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

seizeditinpresenceofPanchas,asperPanchnamaExh.No.302.
PWNo.38addedthatthefrontglassoftheCarwasfoundbroken.
OneFilecontainingsomedocumentsandoneSlipper(Footwear)
alsofoundinthesameCar.
57]

It has come in cross examination of PW No.38 PSI

MadhukarChaudharithat nobloodstains were noticed byhim

inside or outside the Car. It has further come in the cross
examinationofthiswitnessthathedoesnotknowwhetherthe
investigationofthecrimewashandedovertoLocalCrimeBranch
on 21092005 at 17.40 hours. It has also come in cross
examinationofthiswitnessthatmanypersonswerepresentwhen
herecordedFIRofMahendraMahajanatCivilHospital.
58]

PW No.41 Police Sub Inspector Shivnath Gangaram

Shinde(Exh.No.424)hastestifiedthaton21092005,hewas
attached to Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. On that day, he
preparedthePanchnamaoftheSpotinCrimeNo.242of2005in
presenceoftwoPanchasvideExh.No.299.Itisintheevidenceof
PWNo.41PSIShinde,thatoneHelmet,oneSlipperofrightleg,
oneHandkerchiefandoneBraceletwerefoundlyingontheSpot
andthosewereseizedinpresenceofPanchas.Headdedthatthe
bloodstainswerealsofoundontheSpotandthesampleofblood
mixed Soil was taken. It is in the evidence of PW No.41 PSI
ShindethatheseizedPayjama,Nicker,BaniyanandShirtofthe
deceased in presence of Panchas as per Seizure Panchnama
Exh.No.321.

-32-

59]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

It has come in cross examination of PW No.41 API

ShindethatnobloodstainswerenoticedontheHelmet,Slipper,
Handkerchief and Bracelet which were seized from the Spot of
Incident.Ithasfurthercomeincrossexaminationofthiswitness
that P.C.Bashir told him that the clothes seized by him under
seizurePanchnamaExh.No.321wereofVictim.
60]

PWNo.2VijayNimbrajSonar(Exh.No.298)isaPanch

on Spot Panchnama. This witness works as a Mechanic on a

Garage,situatedatShopNo.1ShoppingComplexatManrajPark.
PWNo.2hastestifiedthatAPIShindecalledhimforactingasa
Panch. OneSecurityGuardnamelyMahajanshowntheSpotof
Incident, where Professor V.G.Patil was murdered. The Spot of
Incident is situated towards eastern side of the house of one
Lunkad.Therewere5to6bushesandsmallGutterontheSpot.
Two big floor tiles were kept on the Gutter. He noticed blood
stains on the Wall adjacent to the Spot of Incident. He also
noticedbloodstainsbeneaththebushes.Itisintheevidenceof
PWNo.2VijaySonarthatonebrokenHelmet,oneHandkerchief,
oneyellowmetalBracelet,oneSlipperofrightleg,werefound
lyingontheSpot.Thepoliceseizedallthosearticlesbeforehim.
ThepolicealsotookmeasurementsoftheSpotofincident.They
alsocollectedsamplesofbloodmixedsoilandplainsoilfromthe
Spot. ItisintheevidenceofPWNo.2VijaySonarthatpolice
prepared Spot Panchnama vide Exh.No.299 before him and he
signedthesameontheSpot.

-33-

61]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Incrossexamination,PWNo.2VijaySonardeniedthe

suggestionthatnobloodstainswerefoundonshrubsandgrass.
He admitted the suggestion that there were blood dots on the
Handkerchief.ThiswitnesshasadmittedthattheSlipperwasof
greycolour.

62]

PWNo.46Nanaraos/oSakharamGhuge(Exh.No.452)

is Investigating Officer. At the relevant time, he was Police

Inspector at L.C.B.,Jalgaon. This witness has testified that the
investigation of Crime No.242 of 2005 registered at Jilha Peth
PoliceStation,Jalgaonwashandedovertohimon21092005.
Herecordedstatementofsomewitnesses. Hearrestedaccused
Raju Pundlik Mali and accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane on
25092005 by making Arrest Panchnamas vide Exh Nos.
311and312.
63]

The evidence of PW No.46 Police Inspector N.S.

Ghuge about the arrest of accused Raju Pundlik Mali ( now

deceased ) and Raju Chintaman Sonawane under Arrest
PanchnamasExh.No.311and312respectively.,arecorroborated
by PW No.4 Dnyaneshwar Bansi Sapke (Exh.No.303) and PW
No.5 Pradeep Dinkar Chaudhari (Exh.No.310). Thus the
prosecution has proved that accused Raju Pundlik Mali ( now
deceased ) and Raju Chintaman Sonawane were arrested on
25092005.

-34-

64]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

PW No.46 Police Inspector N.S.Ghuge has further

testifiedthat,on27092005accusedRajuMaliwasinhiscustody.
HevoluntarilygavestatementinpresenceofPanchastotheeffect
that he is ready to produce Knife, Helmet and Clothes.
Accordingly, the Memorandum Panchnama was prepared vide
Exh.No.453inpresenceofPanchas.Thereafter,accusedRajuMali
tookhimselfandPanchastowardsatempleofLordDattasituated
attheBankofGirnaRiverwithinthevicinityofvillageNimkhedi.
Accused Raju Mali produced Knife, Helmet, Clothes and one
Handkerchief.HeseizedtheseArticlesunderSeizurePanchnana
Exh.No.454inpresenceofPanchas.
65]

PW No.46 Police Inspector N.S.Ghuge has further

testified that, accused Raju Mali also gave another disclosure

statement in presence of Panchas vide Exh.No.455. Thereafter,
accused Raju Mali took him towards Railway Bridge at Shiwaji
Nagar, Jalgaon. One Mobile Phone was concealed in a grass
belowtheRailwayBridge.AccusedRajuMalitookoutthesame.
HeseizedsaidMobilePhoneinpresenceofPanchasunderSeizure
PanchnamaExh.No.456.
66]

PW46PoliceInspectorN.S.Ghugehasfurthertestified

thaton29092005,accusedRajuMalimadedisclosurestatement
inpresenceofPanchas.ItwasreducedintowritingvideExh.No.
457. AccusedRajuMalitookhimnearDattaTempleatvillage
Nimkhedi. One Country made Revolver and Four Cartridges
which were concealed in a ditch near Datta Temple at village

-35-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Nimkhedi were seized by him, under Panchnama

Exh.No.458.
67]

It is in the evidence of PW No.46 Police Inspector

N.S.Ghuge that, on 27092005, accused Raju Pundlik Mali

(nowdeceased)madeanotherdisclosurestatementbefore him
thathehasparkedMotorcyclebearingNo.MH15/AP1341atthe
Parking Place of Bhusawal Railway Station. He is ready to
produce the same. It is in the evidence of Police Inspector
N.S.GhugethataccusedRajuMalithentookhimtoParkingPlace
of Bhusawal Railway Station and pointed out the aforesaid
Motorcycletohim.HeseizedthesaidMotorcycleinpresenceof
PanchasasperPanchnamaExh.No.318.
68]

PW No.8 Vilas Rambhau Kandare (Exh.No.317) is a

Panch witness on Panchnama Exh.No.318. This witness has

testified that in the month of September2005, he went near
BhusawalRailwayStationalongwithP.IShriGhuge,otherpolice
staffandaccusedRajuMali.AccusedRajuMalitookthemtothe
ParkingPlaceoftheRailwayStation. OneHeroHondaSplender
ofblackColourwasparkedthere.AccusedRajuMalitoldthathe
hadparkedsaidMotorcyclethere.Accordingly,thepoliceprepared
PanchnamabeforehimvideExh.No.318.PWNo.8VilasKandare
identifiedMotorcycleArt.No.13,beforetheCourt. Theevidence
of PW No.8 about the seizure of Motorcycle on the basis of
disclosurestatementmadebyAccusedRajuPundlikMalihasgone
unrebuttedduringcrossexamination.Hence,Ifindnoreasonto
disbelievethiswitness.

-36-

69]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

PW No.23 Ramesh Chaudhari (Exh.No.363) has

testifiedthat,intheyear2005,ChandrakantJanardhanChaudhari
had taken contract of parking of vehicles at Railway Station,
Bhusawal. HeandoneSayeedKureshiwereservingatthesaid
ParkingStand. Theentriesregardingtheparkingofthevehicles
attheParkingStandwerebeingtakeninaRegisterArt.''19''.On
17122005,policeseizedsaidRegisterinhispresencefromthe
possessionofSayeedKureshiunderSeizurePanchnamaExh.No.
364.Theevidenceofthiswitnesshasgoneunrebuttedduringthe
crossexamination.Hence,Ifindnoreasontodisbelievethesame.
70]

Thus by adducing evidence of PW Nos.46 Police

Inspector N.S.Ghuge, PW No.8 Vilas Rambhau Kandare and

PW No.23 Ramesh Shantarm Chaudhari, the prosecution has
provedthattheMotorcyclebearingNo.MH15/AP1341wasused
inthecommissionbyaccusedRajuPundlikMali(Nowdeceased)
and Raju Chintaman Sonawane and they parked the same at
ParkingPlaceofRailwayStation,Bhusawal.
71]

PWNo.46PoliceInspectorShriGhugeidentifiedKnife

(Art.''15),Cellphone(Art.'22'),TwoShirtsandPant(Art.23,24
and25)andHandkerchief(Art.26)beforetheCourt.

72]

It is pertinent to note that the learned Advocate for

accusedMr.Kaul,hascrossexaminedPWNo.46PoliceInspector
N.S.Ghuge.Buthiscrossexaminationislimiteduptothe

-37-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

nonrecording of statements of Dr.Rajesh Jain, Dr.Bhangale and

thewifeofvictimandnonarrangingofTestIdentificationParade
bythiswitness.Itislimiteduptononexistenceofbloodstainsin
the Car of deceased and about forwarding the copies of Case
DiariestotheOfficeofSuperintendentofPolice,Jalgaon. Itis
pertinenttonotethatMr.KaulAdvocatehasnotputanyquestion
to Police Inspector N.S.Ghuge about the contents of Arrest
PanchnamasExh.Nos.311and312.Hehasnotputanyquestion
toPoliceInspectorMr.N.S.Ghugeaboutthediscoveryandseizure
of Knife (Art No.15), Helmet, ClothesandHandkerchief on the
basisofdisclosurestatementmadebydeceasedaccused. Hehas
notputanyquestiontoPoliceInspectorMr.N.S.Ghugeaboutthe
discoveryandseizureofMotorcyclebearingNo.MH15/AP1341
fromtheParkingPlaceofRailwayStation,Bhusawal,onthebasis
of disclosure statement made by deceased accused Raju
ChintamanMali. Consequently,theArrestPanchnamasExh.Nos.
311,312,MemorandumcumSeizurePanchnamasExh.Nos.318,
453,454455,456,457and458havegoneunchallenged. The
evidenceregardingtheseizureofKnife(Art.15)andtheseizureof
Motorcycle,MobilePhone,CountrymadeRevolver,Cartridgeson
thebasisofdisclosurestatementmadebyaccusedRajuPundlik
Mali, has gone unchallenged during the crossexamination of
Police Inspector N.S.Ghuge. Therefore, even though the Panch
Witnesses PWNo.32SatishPrakashSapkale(Exh.No.397)and
PWNo.43JitendraRajendraSalunkhe(Exh.No.435)haveturned
hostile. Ibelievetheevidenceof PoliceInspectorN.S.Ghugeas
trueandholdthattheProsecutionhasprovedthatonthebasisof

-38-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

disclosurestatementsmadebyaccusedRajuPundlikMali(now
dead), Knife(Art.15),MotorcycleMobilePhone,Revolverand
Cartridgeswerediscoveredandseized.
73]

PW No.26 Sachin Amarnath Mahajan

(Exh.No.378)isbrotherofwifeofaccusedRajuSonawane. He
sells goods in Railway train running between Nashik Road and
Igatpuri Stations. This witness has testified that, before about
3to4years,accusedRajuSonawanemethimatNashikRoad.He
wasaccompanyingwithaccusedRajuMali.TheycametoNashik
Road by Pawan Express at about 3.30 p.m., Accused Raju
Sonawanesaidtohimthattherewasquarrelinbetweenhimself
andM.L.APatilofJalgaonontheearlierdayandhehimselfand
hiscolleaguehavedecidedtosurrenderbeforepolice.Itisinthe
evidence of Sachin Amarnath Mahajan, that accused Raju
SonawanedirectedhimtotakehissisterDurgatohishouseat
BurhanpurtoNashikRoad. Itisintheevidenceofthiswitness
thathisbrotherinlawaccusedRajuSonawaneandaccusedRaju
Mali met him only for 15 minutes at Nashik Road and they
immediatelyreturnedbackbyKamayaniExpress.
74]

Itistruethat,theevidenceofPWNo.26istoovague.

Heisunabletostatetheexactdate,monthoryearwhenaccused
Raju Chintaman Sonawane and deceased accused Raju Pundlik
Mali met him. It is also worth to note that, accused Raju
ChintamanSonawanehasnotgivenExtraJudicialConfessionin
clearwordsaboutthecommissionofMurderofprofessorV.G.Patil

-39-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

beforePWNo.26.Iamawarethat,theevidenceofExtraJudicial
Confessionisweaktypeofevidence. Suchconfessionsmustget
corroboration from the other surrounding circumstances. In the
case in hand, it cannot be forgotten that, PW No.26 Sachin
MahajanwasnotstrangertoaccusedRajuChintamanSonawane.
He is real brother of the wife of accused Raju Chintaman
Sonawane. Furthermore, the post conduct of the accused Raju
ChintamanSonawaneandhiscoaccusedRajuMali(nowdead)
isrelevantundertheIndianEvidenceAct.Thedefencecouldnot
bringonrecordthereasonastowhyPWNo.26deposed false.
Therefore, I believe evidence of PW No.26 Sachin Mahajan as
true,totheextentthat accusedRajuChintamanSonawanemet
him at Nashik Road and told him that he and his coaccused
wantedtosurrenderbeforePolice,becauseofquarrelwithM.L.A
PatilofJalgaonontheearlierday.AsperevidenceofPWNo.26
SachinMahajan,lateronhecametoknowfromthereadingof
Newspaperthat,ProfessorV.G.PatilwasmurderedatJalgaonand
in connection of it, his brother in law Raju Sonawane and his
cousinbrotherRajuMaliwerearrested.
75]

PW No.44 Shantaram Gaikwad ( Exh.No.436 )

isInvestigatingOfficer.HewasDy.S.PatStateC.I.DCrime,Flying
Squad,Nashikattherelevanttime.Thiswitnesshastestifiedthat
as per the directions given by Superintendent of Police, C.I.D
Crime,Nashik,on30092005,hetookinvestigationofCrimeNo.
242of2005,registeredatJilhaPethPoliceStation,Jalgaonfrom
PoliceInspectorGhuge.On7102005,accusedRajuMaligave

-40-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

informationinpresenceofPanchasthathehaspurchasedBracelet
andKnifefromtheShopssituatedatFuleMarket,Jalgaonandhe
isreadytoshowthoseShops.ThesaidStatementwasrecorded
intowritinginpresenceofPanchasvideExh.No.361.Itisinthe
evidenceofPW44Dy.S.P.Gaikwadthat,accusedRajuMalitook
himselfandPanchastotheShopofRajeshMadhan. Theseized
knifewasshowntoRajeshMadhanandhewasaskedwhetherit
was sold by him to Raju Mali and he replied that it was same
knife, which was sold by him to accused Raju Mali. However,
accusedRajuMaliwasnotidentifiedbyRajeshMadhan. Itisin
theevidenceofDy.S.P.Gaikwad,thattheseizedknifewasshown
totheDoctor,whoconductedPostmortemofdeceasedV.G.Patil.
TheDoctorwasaskedtogive opinionastowhethertheinjury
foundonthepersonofProfessorV.G.Patil,arepossiblebyKnife
Art.''15.TheMedicalOfficergaveOpinionvideExh.No.386that
theinjuries found ontheperson of Professor V.G.Patil couldbe
inflicted by Knife Art.''15''. The Knife was thereafter sealed in
presenceofPanchas.PWNo.44ShantaramPanditraoGaikwadhas
furthertestifiedthattheclothesofdeceasedandaccusedpersons
andtheirbloodsamplesweresenttoC.AOffice,Nashikthrough
Police Constable Shantaram Patil, B.No.775. The Revolver and
fourliveCartridgesseizedfromaccusedRajuMaliweresentto
Ballistic Expert, Mumbai. The Test Identification Parade of
accusedRajuMaliandRajuSonawanewasconductedatDistrict
Prison, Jalgaon on 15102005 through Executive Magistrate.
Witness Jayant Patil identified accused Raju Mali and Raju
SonawaneintheTestIdentificationParade.PWNo.16Rambhau

-41-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

GobruPawarhadgonetoBhopal. Hewasnotavailableatthe
time of conduction of First Test Identification Parade dated
15102005. Therefore, his presence was secured and another
TestIdentificationParadewasconductedon8112005atDistrict
Prison, Jalgaon. Witness Rambhau Pawar identified both the
accused in the said T.I.Parade. The statements of Narayan
Badgujar, Firoz Tadvi, Madhukar Chaudhari, Mahesh Supdu
Mahajanwererecorded. TherecordoftheCallsfromCoinBox
vide Exh.No.423 was made available by Telecom Engineer
RavindraTupe. TheHeroHondaMotorcycleparkedbyaccused
Raju Mali and Raju Sonawane in the parking plot of Bhusawal
Railway Station was seized. After due investigation, he filed
ChargesheetagainstaccusedRajuMali,RajuSonawane,Liladhar
NarkhedeandDamodarLokhandeon22122005.

76]

PW No.45 Rajendrasing s/o Shri Ramswarupsing

Panwar(Exh.No.444)isInvestigatingOfficer. Hewasservingas
AdditionalS.PinSpecialCrimeBranchatC.B.IMumbai,atthe
relevanttime. Hehastestifiedthat,asperOrderpassedbythe
Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.6467 of 2005, the
investigationoftheCrimewashandedovertoC.B.I.inFebruary
2007. ThecasewasregisteredatSpecialCrimeBranch,Mumbai
videR.C.No.2/S/2007on15thMarch,2007.It'sinvestigationwas
handedovertohim.Herecordedstatementsofnearabout100
witnessesincludingeyewitnessRambhauGobruPawar. Healso
recorded statement of Shaligram Onkar Mankar on 01102007
and 14022008, as per his say. He seized Personal Diary

-42-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

(Art.'20')ofRambhauGobruPawarunderaSeizurePanchnama.
Healsocollected13Photographs( Art.'7') ofdeceasedV.G.Patil
fromPolicePhotographer. On10062008,hefiledChargesheet
againstaccusedRajuMaliandRajuSonawane.Hefiledanother
Chargesheet against accused Damodar Lokhande and Liladhar
Narkhedeon6102008.
77]

PWNo.33PranavVishramPatil(Exh.No.400)issonof

deceasedProfessorShriV.G.Patil. Thiswitnesshastestifiedthat
theCBIhadgivendirectionstohimforproductionoftheproof
regarding the blood group of his father. Therefore, he handed
overtheDrivingLicence(Exh.No.401)beforetheCBIOfficials.It
is in the evidence of PW No.33 Pranav Patil that, as per the
Driving Licence Exh.No.401, the blood group of his father
deceased V.G.Patilwas 'O'' Positive. The evidence of PWNo.33
PranavPatilaboutthehandingoverofDrivingLicenceofvictim
(Exh.No.401)toInvestigatingOfficerhasgoneunrebuttedinhis
crossexamination.Ifindnoreasontodisbelievetheevidenceof
thiswitness.
78]

TheProsecutionhasproducedDrivingLicenceofthe

VictimatExh.No.401.AspertheDrivingLicencethebloodofthe
Victimwas''O''Positive.ThisDrivingLicencehasbeenissuedby
RTOintheyear1990.Ifindnoreasontodisbelievetheentriesin
theDrivingLicence.Thus,theprosecutionhasprovedthatblood
GroupofVictimwas''O''Positive.

-43-

79]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

PW.No.31P.C.BuckleNo.1728SanjayBhimdaSapkale

(Exh.No.395)andPWNo.35PoliceConstableShantaramVana
Patil(Exh.No.404)aretheCarriers.Thesewitnesseshavetestified
thattheycarriedtheseizedarticlesinthisCrimeinsealedpackets
anddepositedthesameintheOfficeofRegionalForensic,Science
Laboratory.TheDefencehasnotseriouslychallengedtestimonyof
thesewitnesses.
80]

PWNo.17DamodarShrawanKapde(Exh.No.352)was

serving as a Chemical Analyzer at Regional Forensic, Science

Laboratory at Nashik at the relevant time. This witness has
testified that he was serving as Assistant Chemical Analyzer at
RegionalForensic,ScienceLaboratory,Nashik. Thiswitnesshas
testifiedthaton10102005,PoliceConstableB.No.775ofJilha
PethPoliceStation,JalgaonhasproducedsixSealedParcelsand
FiveSealedPacketsalongwithforwardingletterdated09102005
tohim.ThisletterwassignedbyDy.S.P.,D.C.P.,CIDCamp,Jalgaon.
He also issued one sealed Carton from Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital,JalgaonalongwithForwardingLetter.
81]

PWNo.17DamodarKapdehasfurthertestifiedthaton

11102005,hestartedanalysisofthesamples.Onopeningofthe
sealed parcels, he found (1) Baniyan sleeves (Cut) wrapped in
paper,(2)Underwearwrappedinpaper,(3)Payjamawrappedin
paper(4)NehruShirt(Cut)wrappedinpaper,(5)Surat(Knife)in
apacket(6)Handkerchiefinapacket,(7)HalfbushShirtina
Packet,(8)FullPantinapacket(9)FullbushshirtinaPacket

-44-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

(10)EarthinaPolytheneBagwrappedinapaperand(11)earth
wrappedinpolythenebag.
82]

PW No.17 Damodar Kapde has testified that, all

Exhibits were found stained with blood except Exh.No.11. All

bloodsampleswereofhumanorigin.Exh.Nos.1,3,4and5wereof
''O''groupandrestoftheexhibitscouldnotbeclassified,asthe
results were inconclusive. The sample of the blood of the
deceased was analyzed on 11102005, but the report was
inconclusive. The blood sample of accused Nos.1 and 2 were
analyzedon1202005anditwasfoundthatthebloodgroupof
accusedNo.1RajuMaliwas'A'andbloodgroupofAccusedNo.2
RajuSonawanewas''B''.HefurthertestifiedthatastheirSection
couldnotanalyzethesampleofsoil,therefore,soilsampleswere
senttoGeneralAnalyticDivisionoftheirOffice.
83]

PW No.18 Chandrahans Rajaram Bodkhe

(Exh.No.357)isAssistantChemicalAnalystatRegionalForensic
Laboratory, Aurangabad. This witness has testified that on
22112005,D.C.P,CIDCamp,JalgaonhadsentSoilsampletohis
Office,foranalysis.HeanalyzedthesamplesofSoil
84]

Asdiscussedabove,PWNos.17DamodarKapdeand

PWNo.18ChandrahansBodkhehavedulyprovedtheC.AReports
Exh.Nos.353to357.

-45-

85]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

AsperC.AReportExh.No.353,humanbloodofGroup

'O'wasdetectedontheseizedKnifeArt.'15.
86]

As per C.A Report Exh.No.356, the Blood Group of

accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane is ''B''. As per C.A Report

Exh.No.355,theBloodGroupofaccusedRajuPundlikMali(now
dead)is''A''. Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowthataccused
RajuPundlikMali(nowdead)andRajuChintamanSonawane
hadsustainedanyinjuryonthedayofincident.
87]

AsperC.AReportExh.No.353,theseizedBaniyanand

Neharu Shirt of Victim were stained with human blood of

Group''O''.
88]

Thustheprosecutionhasprovedthat,theBloodGroup

foundontheseizedKnifeArt.15andclothesofdeceasedwasof
oneandthesamei.e.,Group''O'',whichwastheBloodGroupof
Victim.
89]

Thus,theprosecutionhasprovedbeyonddoubtthat

theKnifeArt.'15'aswellasBanianandNehruShirtoftheVictim
werestainedwithbloodof''O''Group,whichistheBloodGroupof
victim.
90]

PW No.28 Dr.Pankaj Saindane has testified that on

7102005, the Investigation Officer produced Knife Art.''15''

beforehim. TheInvestigationOfficer madequerytohimasto

-46-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

whether the injuries mentioned in Column No.17 of the

Memorandum of Postmortem Examination Exh.No.384, were
possible by the said Knife. It is in the evidence of Dr.Pankaj
SaindanethatheseentheKnife. Thereafter,hegaveopinionto
that effect that the injury sustained by deceased V.G.Patil were
possiblebytheKnifeArt.''15''.PWNo.28Dr.PankajSaindanehas
provedtheCertificateofOpinionExh.No.386.
91]

The Defence Witness No.1 Sunil Bhimsen Khade

(Exh.No.706)isExZillaParishadEngineer.Atpresentheworks
asaBuildingContractor.ThiswitnesshastestifiedthatNational
Highway No.6 passes through Jalgaon City. It is known as
DhuleNagpurRoad. GujralPetrolPumpisadjacenttoNational
HighwayNo.6. ManrajParkistowardstheEastofGujralPetrol
Pumpatthedistance500to750Meters.NetraDeepProvisionsis
situated at the distance of 100 feet from Manraj Park towards
southernside. ThedistancebetweenPimpralaGaonandGujral
PetrolPumpis500Metersapproximately. Itissituatedtowards
thesouthernsideofGujralPetrolPump.ThereisTarRoadofthe
width of 40 Feet which emerges from Gujral Petrol Pump and
proceedstowardsPimprala.
92]

In the cross examination, DW No.1 Sunil Khade has

admittedthathehasnotseentheSpotofIncident.Oneanother
roadalsogoes toPimpralaGaonwhichpassesfrominfrontof
ManrajPark.ThewidthofthisRoadis30feet.Ithasalsocome
in cross examination of DW No.1 that there are several roads

-47-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

havingwidthof20FeetforgoingtowardsPimpralaGaon.These
RoadsstartfromGujralPetrolPumplocalityandpassesthrough
ManrajPark.
93]

PWNo.7AbhayGulabsingShisode(Exh.No.315)has

testifiedthat,Dy.S.PShriGaikwadcalledhimatCIDOffice.One
KnifeandBraceletwereshowntohim. Dy.S.P.Gaikwadasked
accusedRajuMaliwherefromhehaspurchasedthesaidknifeand
Bracelet. Thereon, accused Raju Mali replied that, he has
purchasedBraceletfromShringarJewelers. Asperevidenceof
PW No.7 Abhay Shisode, accused Raju Mali took them to
ShringarJewelerssituatedatFuleMarket.TheowneroftheShop
Rajwani was present there. Dy.S.P. Gaikwad shown Bracelet to
Rajwani. Thereon, Rajwani said that accused Raju Mali has
purchasedthesaidBraceletfromhisShopforRs.250/.PWNo.7
added that the Shop owner was knowing accused Raju Mali,
becauseheisisregularCustomer.PWNo.7hasfurthertestified
that thereafter Raju Mali took them at Shri Amar Metals. The
owneroftheShopnamelyMandhanwaspresentthere.TheKnife
wasshowntotheShopOwner.Oninquiry,theShopownertold
that,thesaidKnifewaspurchasedbyaccusedRajuMalifromhis
Shop. It is in the evidence of PW No.7 that the words '' Lord
OriginalmadeinGermanyRustProofStainlessstill''wasembossed
onthesaidKnife.PWNo.7hasfurthertestifiedthat,fromFule
Market,theyreturnedbacktoCIDOfficeandaccusedRajuMali
was kept in Lockup. PW No.7 Abhay Shisode has identified
BraceletArt.5A&KnifeArt.15beforetheCourt.

-48-

94]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

TheevidenceofPWNo.7AbhayShisodeisnothelpful

totheprosecution,becauseitisvague. Hehasnotstateddate
whenaccusedRajuMaliwastakentoShringarJewellersandShri
Amar Metals. The Investigation Officer has not prepared any
Panchnama about the Disclosure Statement allegedly made by
accusedRajuMaliaboutthepurchaseofBraceletandKnifefrom
Shringar Jewellers and Shri Amar Metals. Furthermore, the
evidenceofthiswitnessisalsonotsupportedbytheownersof
aforesaidShops.Therefore,itisliabletobediscarded.
95]

PW No.21 Rajesh Manohar Mandan (Exh.No.361) is

ProprietorofUtensilShopnamelyShriAmarmetals,situatedat
FuleMarket,Jalgaon.Thiswitnesshastestifiedthatbeforeabout
5years,policebroughtaccusedMalitohisShop.ThePoliceasked
himaswellashisservantsastowhethertheyidentifythesaid
accused. It is in the evidence of PW No.21 that he could not
identifythesaidaccused. Thiswitnesshasfurthertestifiedthat
police had shown Knife of Lords Company to him. After
examiningsaidKnife,hetoldtopolicethatthesaidknivesofsaid
CompanymadeinGermanywereavailableinhisShop. Healso
saidtopolicethattheKnifeArt.'15'mighthavebeenpurchased
fromhisShop.IthascameincrossexaminationofPWNo.21that
theKnifelikeArt.15areavilableintheMarket. Therefore,the
evidenceofPWNo.21RajeshManoharMadanisnotusefultothe
prosecutiononthepointofthepurchaseofKnifeArt.15fromShri
AmarMetals.

-49-

96]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Itispertinenttonotethat,thereisdirectevidenceof

PW No.16 Rambhau Pawar to the effect that accused Raju

ChintamanSonawanegaveblowsbyKnifeArt.'15'totheVictim.
ThefactofpurchaseofsaidKnifeiswithinthespecialknowledge
ofaccused. Theprosecutionisnotboundtoprovehowthesaid
Knife came in possession of accused. Therefore, though the
evidenceofPWNo.7AbhayShisodeandPWNo.21RajeshMadan
doesnothelptheprosecution,itcannotdestroyit'scase.
97]

PWNo.22RameshBhagwandasRajwani(Exh.No.362)

is Proprietor of Shringar Jewelers, situated at Shop No.118,

Central Fule Market, Jalgaon. This witness has testified that
beforeaboutfiveyears,onepersonwasbroughttohisShopand
he was asked to identify him. He said to police that the said
person had came to his Shop 23 times for purchasing
Mangalsutra and the Bentex Jewelery. Said person had also
purchasedBraceletandFingerRing. ItisintheevidenceofPW
No.22thatoneBraceletArt.'5'wasshowntohimbypolice. He
identifiedthesameandtestifiedthat,itwassoldfromhisShopfor
Rs.90/. It is most important to note that PW No.22 Ramesh
RajwanihasneitherstatedthenameofaccusedRajuChintaman
Sonawane nor identified him before the Court. There is no
evidence on record to indicate that, seized Bracelet was being
used by accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane or by deceased
accused. TheBraceletfoundontheSpotisageneralArticleof
Commerce.Itisnotusedforcommissionofcrime.Therefore,

-50-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

thoughtheevidenceofPWNo.22RameshBhagwandasRajwani
doesnothelptheprosecution,itcannotdestroyit'scase.
98]

PW No.10 Rajendra Bhivsan Koli (Exh.No.343),

PW No.11 Narayan Ganpat Badgujar (Exh.No.44) , PW No.12

KailashWamanraoPatil(Exh.No.345)andPWNo.15Shaligram
OnkarMalkar(Exh.No.350)areexaminedbytheprosecution,on
thepointoftheircheatingbyaccusedRajuPundlikMali(now
dead).Thesumandsubstancesofevidenceofthesewitnessesis
that,deceasedaccusedgrabbedhugeamountsfromthemonthe
pretextofgettingtheirworkdonefromMantralaya,Mumbaiand
PoliceDepartment. Therefore,theevidenceofthesewitnessesis
not helpful to prove charge against accused Raju Chintaman
Sonawane.
99]

Theevidenceof PWNo.13ShabbirShahaAjijShaha

isabouttheseizureofReceiptBookArt.14fromDarga.Thereis
nothingon recordto indicate that the accusedRajuChintaman
Sonawane has any concern with the said Receipt Book.
Therefore,the evidence of this witness is not helpful to prove
chargeagainstaccusedRajuChintamanSonawane.
100]

PWNo.14DevprakashRamkisanPawarandPWNo.

34ArjunBabaraoRathodareexaminedbytheprosecution,onthe
pointofpurchaseofHeroHondaMotorcyclebearingRegistration

-51-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

No.MH15/AP1341byaccusedLiladharNarkhedeundertheSale
ReceiptExh.No.349fromthem.ThetrialagainstaccusedLiladhar
Narkhede is yet to be commenced. Therefore, the evidence of
thesewitnessesisnotcannotbeappreciatedatthisstage.
101]

Asperprosecutioncase,PWNo.24ManoharDayaram

Mahajan (Exh.No.365 ) provided old Dresses to Accused Raju

ChintamanSonawaneandRajuPundlikMali(nowdeceased)on
their demand. However, this witness has not supported the
prosecutionatall.Consequently,hisevidenceisnothelpfultothe
prosecution.
102]

PWNo.37AshokVasudeoprasadShrivastav,(Exh.No.

411)isservingasaPolicesubInspectoratLalbagPoliceStation,
Burhanpur.Asperevidenceofthiswitness,CrimeNo.98of2002
u/s294,506r/wSection34ofI.P.CodeandCrimeNo.100of2002
u/s25ofArmsActareregisteredagainstaccusedRajuSonawane
at Lalbag Police Station, Burhanpur in the State of Madhya
Pradesh.Besidesthis,ChapterProceedingu/s107oftheCodeof
Criminal Procedure was also initiated against him in the year
2002. TheevidenceofPWNo.37abouttheaforesaidCriminal
HistoryofaccusedRajuChintamanSonawanehasnorelevancy,
becausethereisnothingonrecordtoshowthatheisconvictedby
thecompetentCourtfortheallegedoffences.
103]

The evidence of PW No.40 Ravindra Hari Tupey

(Exh.No.421)isonthepointofCallsmadeontheMobilePhone

-52-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

of other accused from P.C.O.No.267721 of Kingaon. As per

prosecutioncase,aftercommissionoftheoffence,accusedRaju
ChintamanSonawaneandRajuPundlikMali(nowdead)made
callsfromtheaforesaidP.C.OtootheraccusedinthisCase. The
trialagainsttheotheraccusedisyettobecommenced.Therefore,
theevidenceofthiswitnesscannotbeappreciatedatthisstage.
104]

PW No.43 Jitendra Rajendra Solunke

(Exh.No.435) is a Panch witness on the Memorandum cum

SeizurePanchnamaofKnifealongwithotherArticles.However,
thiswitnesshasnotsupportedtheprosecutionatall.TheSpecial
P.PforC.B.IdeclaredthatPWNo.43Jitendraturnedhostileand
crossexaminedhimatalength,butnothingcameonrecordto
substantiate the charge. Therefore, the evidence of this not
helpfultoprosecution.
105]

PW No.32 Satish Sapkale (Exh.No.397) is a Panch

WitnessonMemorandumCumSeizurePanchnama.Accordingto
prosecution case, as per disclosure statement of accused Raju
Mali,theKnifeusedforcommissionofoffencealongwithsome
other Articles was discovered and seized, in presence of this
witness. However PW No.32 Satish Prakash Sapkale has not
supported the prosecution. The Special P.P declared that this
witnesshasturnedhostileandcrossexaminedhimatlength,but
nothingcameonrecordtosubstantiatethecharge.Therefore,the
evidenceofPWNo.32isnothelpfultoprosecution.

-53-

106]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

TheCourtWitnessNo.1Smt.RajaniPatil(Exh.No.575)

andCourtWitnessNo.2ShridharChaudhari(Exh.No.589)have
deposedaboutthepoliticalenmitybetweenthevictimandnewly
arrayedaccusedDr.UlhasVasudeoPatilandGajendrasingNarayan
Patil. It has also came in the evidence of DW No.2 Shridhar
Chaudhari that prior to 4 to 5 days of the incident, accused
LiladharNarkhedeandDamodarLokhandehadbroughtaccused
RajuChintamanSonawaneandRajuPundlikMali(nowdead)to
theOfficeofCongressIPartyatJalgaonThetrialagainstaccused
LiladharNarkhede,DamodarLokhandeDr.UlhasVasudeoPatiland
GajendrasingNarayanPatil,isyettobecommenced. Therefore,
the evidence of Court Witness Nos.1 and 2 about the political
enmitybetweenVictimandotheraccusedcannotbeappreciated
atthisstage.

107]

Mr.S.K.Kaul, the learned Advocate for accused Raju

ChintamanSonawanemadeattackontheevidenceofPWNo.16
RambhauGobruPawaronvariousgrounds. Hesubmittedthat
PWNo.16RambhauPawarwasnotwillingtogiveevidence.This
witnesswasrepeatedlysummoned,buthedeliberatelyavoidedto
appearbeforetheCourt.On15072010,heenteredintoWitness
Box, but avoided to give evidence on the pretext of ill health.
Therefore,onhisoralrequest,thematterwasfixedforevidence
aftertwodays. Inspiteofit,thiswitnessdidnotappearbefore
Courtforgivingevidence.Therefore,BailableWarrantwasissued
againsthim. On6082010,thebailablewarrantwascancelled
subject to penalty of Rs.300/. From such conduct of

-54-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

PWNo.16RambhauPawar,hecanbebrandedasagotupwitness.
ThelearnedDefenceAdvocatefurtherarguedthat,Pimpralaisat
thedistanceofhalfkilometerfromGujralPetrolPump.Thereisa
Tar road just opposite to Gujral Petrol Pump, which goes to
Pimprala. TherewasnoreasontoPWNo.16forgoingtowards
theplaceofincidenti.e.,ManrajParkorNetraDeepProvisions.
PWNo.16isnotresidentofJalgaon.Hecannothaveknowledge
aboutGujralPetrolPump,ManrajParketc.ThelearnedDefence
Advocate further argued that, as per evidence of
PWNo.16RambhauPawar,henarratedtheincidenttopoliceon
thesameday.Inspiteofit,thestatementofPWNo.16Rambhau
Pawar is not treated as FIR by Police. The First Informant is
PW No.1 Mahendra Mahajan. Therefore, the evidence of PW
No.16RambhauPawarthathenarratedtheincidenttopoliceon
thesameday,becomesdoubtful.ThelearnedDefenceAdvocate
further submitted that, the photographs of the accused Raju
Pundlik Mali (now dead) and Raju Chintaman Sonawane were
alreadypublishedinLocalNewspapers. Therefore,boththeTest
Identification Parades have become meaningless. The learned
DefenceAdvocatefurtherarguedthat,theconductofPWNo.16
Rambhau Pawar is strange. He has not made complaint to
TahsildarthoughaccusedRajuMali(nowdead)threatenedhim
after the Test Identification Parade. Therefore, the evidence of
PW No.16 Rambhau Pawaraboutthe identification ofaccused
RajuPundlikMali(nowdead)andRajuChintamanSonawane
becomesdoubtful.ThelearnedDefenceAdvocatefurtherargued
that, the Diary Art.'20 is not regularly written by PW No.16

-55-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

RambhauPawar. Thisfactissufficienttoinferthattheentryof
the incident dated 21092005 in Diary Art.No.20 is fabricated.
The learned Defence Advocate further argued that, PW No.16
Rambhau Pawar has criminal antecedents. In his cross
examination,PWNo.16hasadmittedthat,oneChapterCasewas
filed against him at Dhule. He has further admitted that on
30072009 one Ramesh Patil and on 8032009 one Ashok
Marathe had filed complaints against him at Taluka Police
Station,Dhule.
108]

ThelearnedDefenceAdvocatefurtherarguedthatas

perEnglishDeposition,PWNo.16reachedtoGujralPetrolPump
at7.00a.m.ButaspertheMarathiDeposition,hereachedthere
at about 7.30 a.m. He argued that when there is variance
between English Deposition and Marathi Deposition, the
vernacularversionwouldprevail.ThelearnedDefenceAdvocate
further argued that, that as per the evidence of PW
No.36PoliceConstableC.B.Chaudhari(Exh.No.406),heheardthe
noisefromManrajParkatabout7.30a.m.Aspertheevidenceof
PW No.38 PSI M.K.Chaudhari, he received telephonic message
regarding the attack on victim at about 7.25 a.m. As per the
evidence of PW No.39, Police Inspector Mr.Y.D.Patil, he got
informationabouttheassaultonvictimatabout7.30a.m. The
learned Defence Advocate argued that as per Marathi version,
PWNo.16alightedfromtrucknearGujralPetrolPumpat7.30
a.m. ThedistanceinbetweenNetraDeepProvisionsandGujral
PetrolPumpisaboutkilometer.Thewalkingdistancebetween

-56-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Gujral PetrolandNetraDeepProvisionsisatleast10minutes.
Therefore, PW No.16 Rambhau Pawar cannot reach near
NetraDeep Provisions at 7.30 a.m. By that time, the incident
mighthaveover. Therefore,PWNo.16cannothaveopportunity
towitnesstheincident.Hence,PWNo.16isnotwitnessoftruth.
109]

The learned Defence Advocate further argued that,

PWNo.19JaywantKailashPatilisnephewofvictimV.G.Patil.He
isinterestedwitness.TheculpritswerehavingfullsizeHelmets
ontheirheads.Therefore,itishardtodigestthatPWNo.19had
got opportunity to observe their faces. Furthermore, the
photographs of accused Raju Sonawane and Raju Mali were
publishedinLocalNewspapersdated26092005and22102005.
Therefore, the evidence of PW No.19 Jaywant Patil about
identificationofaccusedRajuChintamanSonawane,comesunder
shadowofdoubt.
110]

The learned Defence Advocate further argued that,

PWNo.27 Tahsildar Babasaheb Waghchaure has admitted in his

crossexaminationthathehasnotmadeinquirywiththewitnesses
as to whether they had occasion to see the suspects prior to
holdingoftheTestIdentificationParade. Hefurtheradmitted
that he made no inquiry with the Police as to whether the
photographs of the accused were published in the Local
Newspaper. Accused Raju Sonawane has produced Local
Newspaperdated26092005and22102005.TheseNewspapers
were shown to PW No.27 Mr.Waghchaure. This witness has

-57-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

admittedthatphotographofaccusedRajuMali(nowdead)were
published therein. P. W. No.27 has not conducted Test
IdentificationParadeasperguidelinesgiveninCriminalManual.
Therefore,boththeTestIdentificationParadesconductedbyPW
No.27havebecomemeaningless.
111]

ThelearnedDefenceAdvocatealsomadeattackon

the evidence of First Informant PW No.1 Mahendra Panditrao

Mahajan on various grounds. He argued that the evidence of
PW No.1 MahendraMahajan isvague. He saw three persons
whileassaultingeachothers,butheisunabletostatewhowas
beingassaultedandbywhom.Hehasnotidentifiedtheaccused
RajuChintamanSonawaneordeceasedaccusedRajuMaliinTest
Identification Parade dated 15102005. PW No.1 failed to
identifyaccusedRajuChintamanSonawaneasassailantofvictim
beforetheCourt.HehasnotidentifiedtheseizedHelmetbefore
theCourt. Thereisnoevidenceonrecordabouttheheightof
Raju Chintaman Sonawane or deceased accused Raju Mali.
Therefore,theprosecutionfailedtoproveoutoftwoassailants,
whowastallandwhowasshort.Therefore,accordingtolearned
DefenceAdvocate,theevidenceofPWNo.1MahendraMahajanis
nothelpfultoprosecutiontoprovethecharge. Theprosecution
failedtoprovethebloodgroupofVictim,astheresultofanalysis
ofbloodsampleofVictimareinconclusive.Theprosecutionfailed
toprovethemotivebehindtheCrime.Theprosecutionfailedto
provetheconspiracyamongsttheaccused.Lastly,hesubmitted
that, the prosecution failed to prove charge of Criminal

-58-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Conspiracy and Murder against accused Raju Chintaman

Sonawane, beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, he is
entitledforacquittalbygivingbenefitofdoubt.
112]

Tosupporttheabovesubmissions,thelearnedDefence

AdvocateMr.S.K.KaulhasplacedrelianceonKaricheryChandran
NairVsEdayillamKunhambuNair[AIR1982,Kerala232 )in
whichitisheldthatiftheentriesinLeviDemandRegisterarenot
proved,itisnotadmissibleinevidenceforwantofproof.Herelied
onRavinderSinghGorkhiVsStateofU.P[2006(2)Crimes242
(SC)]inwhichitisheldthat,TheevidenceActdoesnotmakeany
distinction between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding.
Unless specifically provided for, in terms of Section 35 of the
EvidenceAct,theregistermaintainedinordinarycourseofbusiness
byapublicservantinthedischargeofhisofficialduty,orbyany
otherpersoninperformanceofadutyspeciallyenjoinedbythelaw
oftheCountryinwhich,interalia,suchregisteriskeptwouldbea
relevantfact.'' Hereliedon StateofChhattisgarhVsLekhram
[2006(2)Crimes 91(SC) ]inwhichitisheldthat, Entryin
schoolregisterregardingageofprosecutrixisnotconclusive,butit
has evidentiary value. He relied on Bemi Bewa Vs Krushna
ChandraSwain@Gochhayat[AIR2004Ori.14 ]inwhichitis
observedthatAdocumentifadmissibleinaccordancewithSection
35 of the Evidence Act, will automatically not be credible simply
becauseithasbeenadmittedasevidence.Adocumentadmittedas
evidenceistobeconsideredsubjecttorelevancyandbyassessingthe
evidenceasawholeandnotinisolation. Hereliedon Abdullah

-59-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

Vs State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1972 Raj 272 ] in which it is

observed that, An entry in the school register stating the fact in
issueorrelevantfactandmadebyapublicservantinadischargeof
hisofficialdutyorbyanyotherpersoninperformanceofaduty
specificallyenjoinedbythelawuponhimisrelevantunderSection
35oftheEvidenceAct. Hereliedon SaitTarajeeKhimchandVs
YelamartiSatyam@Satteyya[AIR1971SC1865]inwhichitis
observedthat, Themeremarkingofanexhibitdoesnotdispense
withtheproofofdocument.HereliedonBharatVsStateofM.P
[UnreportedJudgmentinAppeal(Cri)488of1996decidedon
30012003,]inwhichtheHon'bleApexCourtpleasedtosetaside
convictionoftheaccusedonthegroundthat,theMemorandum
andDiscoveryPanchanamau/s27oftheEvidenceActwasnot
dulyprovedandtherewasnoproperandlegalidentificationof
ornaments. Hereliedon HariCharanKurmiand JogiaHajam
VsStateofBihar[AIR1964SC1184]inwhichitisheldthat,
aconfessionmadebyoneaccusedcannotbetreatedassubstantive
evidence against his coaccused. He relied on Devanand s/o
ShalikramWankhedeVsTheStateofMaharashtra [2011ALL
MR(Cri)3507]inwhichitisobservedthat, Ifthereisvariance
between vernacular and English deposition of witness, the
vernacular version would prevail. He relied on The State of
MaharashtraVsBhauraos/oDomaUdan[199(1)Mh.L.J.,214]
in which it is observed that When a question arises as to what
exactly the witness had stated in his evidence, it is the Marathi
depositionofthewitnesswhichhadtobetakenintoaccount.

-60-

113]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

No one can dispute the ratio laid down in the

Authorities cited by the learned Defence Advocate. But his

argumentsisnotacceptableforvariousreasons.
114]

The submission made by the learned Defence

Advocate that PW No.16 Rambhau Gobru Pawar is brought up

witness,isnotacceptable.Isaysobecause,PWNo.16Rambhau
PawarisnotresidentofJalgaonDistrict.Heisresidentofvillage
Anchale Tanda in Dhule District. It clearly reveals from the
evidenceofPWNo.16that,hewasnotknowingthevictimorhis
wife Smt Rajani Patil. He was also not knowing accused Raju
ChintamanSonawaneoraccuseddeceasedaccusedRajuMali.He
sawboththeseaccusedandVictimforthefirsttimeontheSpotof
incident. Itrevealsfromtheevidenceof PWNo.16that,after
happeningoftheincident,helearntaboutthenameofVictimas
Professor V. G. Patil from the talk in the Mob gathered on the
Spot.AfterarrivalofSmt.RajaniPatil(CourtWitnessNo.1)
ontheSpot,helearntfromthetalkintheMobgatheredonthe
Spotthat,saidwomanisawifeofvictim. Thereisnothingon
recordtoshowthatPWNo.16wasinterestedinlocalpoliticsof
Jalgaon.ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowthatPWNo.16was
having any kind of enmity with accused Raju Chintaman
SonawaneordeceasedaccusedRajuPundlikMali.Therefore,he
hasnoreasontoidentifyaccusedRajuChintamanSonawaneand
deceased accused Raju Pundlik Mali in the Test Identification
Parade. He has no reason to identifyaccused Raju Chintaman
Sonawane before Court as assailant of the victim. It is also

-61-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

pertinenttonotethattheInvestigatingOfficerhasrecordedthe
statement of Rambhau Pawar u/s 161 of Code of the Criminal
Procedureonthedayofincidentitselfi.e.,on21092005.Atthe
cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that PW No.16 is
residentofaremotevillageinDhuleDistrict.Therefore,itishard
todigestthattheInvestigationOfficercalledPWNo.16fromhis
native place in Dhule District and recorded his statement on
21092005.
115]

ItistruethatasperEnglishDeposition,PWNo.16

arrivednearGujralPetrolPumpat7.00a.m.Whereasasperhis
MarathiDeposition,hearrivedthere at7.30a.m. Thegeneral
ruleofrecordingofevidenceisthat,Judgeshouldtakecarethat
the English and Vernacular Depositions tally with each other.
Unfortunately,theJudgewhorecordedevidenceofPWNo.16,has
notnottakensuchcare. DuetomistakeofJudgeorperhaps
typing mistake, two different timings of arrival of PW No.16
Rambhau Pawar at Gujral Petrol Pump have come on record.
However, there is no vast difference in duration of time, in
MarathiandEnglishDepositions. Thesaiddifferenceconsistsof
30minutesonly.

116]

Itisourcommonknowledgethat,generallyeachand

everypersondoesnotsetthetimingofhisWatchaccordingto
StandardTime. ThereisnoguaranteethattheWatchofevery
personrunsaccurately.Therefore,thetimeindicatedbyWatch
ofonepersondoesnottallywithWatchofanotherperson.Many

-62-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

times, suchdifferencemaybeof10to15minutes. PWNo.16

madeunsuccessfulattempttointervene.But,hewasthreatened
by accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane and Raju Pundlik Mali
(nowdead). Theincidentmusthavebeenlastedfor5to10
minutes.Duringthecourseofincident,theHelmetswornbythe
aforesaid accused fell down. Therefore, PW No.16 got full
opportunitytoobservetheirfaces.Thereisnothingonrecordto
show that PW No.16 committed any mistake in identifying
accused Raju Pundlik Mali ( now dead ) and Raju Chintaman
Sonawane in Test Identification Parade. PW No.16 has also
identifiedaccused Raju ChintamanSonawane before theCourt.
Therefore,thereisnoreasontodoubttheevidenceofPWNo.16
onthepointofcorrectidentificationofaccusedRajuChintaman
Sonawane,beforetheCourt.
117]

In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai VS State of

Gujrath [ AIR 1983 SC 753 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court

pleasedtoobservethat''Discrepancieswhichdonotgototheroot
ofthematterandshakethebasicversionofthewitnesses,cannotbe
annexedwithundueimportance. Moreso,whentheallimportant
'probabilitiesfactor'echoesinfavouroftheversionnarratedbythe
witnesses.Thereasonsare:
(1) Byandlargea witness cannot beexpectedto
possessaphotographicmemoryandtorecallthe
detailsofanincident.Itisnotasifavideotape
isreplayedonthementalscreen;

-63-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

(2) Ordinarilyitsohappensthatawitnessis
overtaken by events. The witness could have
anticipatedtheoccurrencewhichsooftenhasan
element of surprise. The mental faculties
thereforecannotbeexpectedtobeattunedto
absorbthedetails;
(3)

Thepowersofobservationdifferfrompersonto
person.Whatonemaynotice,anothermaynot.
Anobjectormovementmightembossitsimage
on one person's mind whereas it might go
unnoticedonthepartofanother;

(4)

By and large people cannot accurately recall a

conversation and reproduce the very words used
bythemorheardbythem. Theycanonlyrecall
the main purport of the conversation. It is
unrealistictoexpectawitnesstobeahumantape
recorder.

(5)

Inregardtoexacttimeofanincident,onthe
timedurationofanoccurrence,usually,people
maketheirestimatesbyguessworkonthespur
ofthemomentatthetimeofinterrogation.And
onecannotexpectpeopletomakeverypreciseor
reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it
dependsonthe'timesense'ofindividualswhich
variesfrompersontoperson.

(6)

Ordinarilyawitnesscannotbeexpectedtorecall
accurately the sequence of events which take
placeinrapidsuccessionorinashorttimespan.
Awitnessisliabletogetconfused,ormixedup,
wheninterrogatedlateron;

(7)Awitness,thoughwhollytruthfulisliabletobe
overawed by the Court atmosphere and the
piercingcrossexaminationmadebyCounseland
out of nervousness mixupfacts;getconfused

-64-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

regardingsequenceofeventsorfillupdetails
fromimaginationonthespurofmoment.The
subconsciousmindofthewitnesssometimesso
operates on account of the fear of looking
foolish,orbeingdisbelieved,thoughthewitness
isgivingatruthfulandhonestaccountofthe
occurrencewitnessedbyhimPerhapsitisasort
ofapsychologicaldefencemechanismactivated
onthespurofthemoment''.

118]

Inthecaseinhand,PWNo.16musthavestatedthe

timeofhisarrivalnearGujralPetrolPumpapproximately. Isay
so,becauseitisnotspecificallymentionedinEnglishDeposition
that, PWNo.16reachednearGujralPetrolPump at
7.00a.m.

sharp. So also, it is not specially mentioned in Marathi

Depositionthat,hereachednearGujralPetrolPumpat7.30a.m.
sharp. Furthermore, DWNo.1SunilBhmsenKhade(Exh.No.
706)whoisthewitnessofaccusedRajuChintamanSonawane,
himself has testified that the distance between Manraj Park is
towardsEastofGujralPetrolPumpatthedistanceof500to750
Metersonly.Itmeansthat,theSpotofIncidentisnotfaraway
from Gujral Petrol Pump. The speed of walking defers from
persontoperson.Somepersonswalkfastandsomepersonswalk
slow.ThedefencehasnottakencrossexaminationofPWNo.16
abouthiswalkingspeed. Itispertinenttonotethat,PWNo.16
wasservinginParaMilitaryForce.Therefore,hiswalkingspeed
maybefastincomparisontocommonperson.Therefore,hemust
havecrossedthedistanceof500to750Meterswithin5to10
minutes. As discussed above, PW No.16 has given minute

-65-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

detailsoftheincident.Heappearstobeindependentandtruthful
witness.ThedifferenceoftimeinEnglishandMarathiDeposition
isduetomistakeofCourt. Therefore,duetomistakeofCourt,
theentireevidenceofPWNo.16cannotbethrownaway.
119]

The learned Defence Advocate has not taken cross

examinationofPWNo.16RambhauGobruPawarastowhyhe
chosentheroadpassingbythesideofManrajParkforgoingto
Pimprala.ThefactastowhyPWNo.16RambhauPawardidnot
choosetheTarRoadofthewidthof40feettowardsPimiprala,
waswithinthespecialknowledgeofPWNo.16RambhauPawar.
Therefore,theevidenceofDWNo.1SunilBhimsenKhadeabout
the existence of Tar Road of the width of 40 Feet for going to
Pimprala, is not sufficient to deny the presence of
PWNo.16RambnauPawarontheSpotofincident,attherelevant
time.
120]

It is pertinent to note that the learned Defence

AdvocatehasnotcrossexaminedPWNo.16RambhauPawarasto
whyhedidnotgiveevidencebeforeCourton15072010.There
isnocrossexaminationtothiswitnessastowhyhedidnotappear
beforeCourttillissuanceofwarrantagainsthim.Therefore,PW
No.16 could not get opportunity to give explanation about his
absencebeforeCourtongivendates.Ithascameintheevidence
ofPWNo.16thatafterTestIdentificationParade,twopersonshad
gone to his house and made inquiry about him with his wife.
After 23 days, an Offer was made to him on telephone
foracceptanceofRs.10,00,000/andkeepinghimselfawayfrom

-66-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

thiscase.Hedeniedthesaidoffer.Therefore,threatsweregiven
tohim.TheDefencehasnotcrossexaminedPWNo.16onthese
aspects. Therefore, the possibility of remaining absent before
CourtonthegivendatesbyPWNo.16RambhauPawar,cannotbe
ruledout.Itistruethatsomepolicecomplaintsarefiledagainst
PW No.16.Butthere isnothingon record toshowthathehas
beenconvictedforthesame. Therefore,entireevidenceofPW
No.16RambhauPawarcannotbethrownaway,merelybecause
somebodymadePoliceComplaintsagainsthim.Consequently,the
argumentsoflearnedDefenceAdvocatethat,PWNo.16Rambhau
Pawar is a brought up, he has criminal backgrounds and was
hesitanttogiveevidencebeforetheCourt,isnotacceptable.
121]

TheargumentofthelearnedDefenceAdvocateabout

theallegedirregularitiesinholdingTestIdentificationParadeis
alsonotacceptable.Isayso,thereisnopresumptioninlawthat
Newspapersareregularlyreadbyeachandeveryperson.There
is nothing on record to show that before holding of the Test
IdentificationParade, PWNo.16orPWNo.19hadanyoccasion
tosee accusedRaju Chintaman Sonawane or deceasedaccused
RajuPundlikMaliortheirphotographs.PWNo.16andPWNo.19
have flatly denied the suggestion put to them that, they had
occasiontoseethephotographsofaforesaidaccusedpublishedin
theNewspaper.
122]

ItistruethatPWNo.19JaywantPatilisrelative of

Victim. However, there is no presumption in law that the

-67-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

evidenceofrelativewitnessistobediscardedintoto. Thelaw
saysthat,theevidenceofrelativewitnessshouldbedealt with
due care and caution. In the case in hand, PW No.19 is a
student. HeregularlyusedtogotoCollegebytheroadpassing
throughManrajParkatabout7.00a.m.Onthedayofincident
also,asusualhewentbythesaidroadandhehadoccasiontosee
accused Raju Pundlik Mali ( now dead ) and Raju Chintaman
Sonawaneonthe Ota ofNetraDeepProvisions. Ifthiswitness
hadtotalkfalse,thenhecouldhavedeposedthathehadactually
seentheaforesaidaccusedwhileassaultingthevictim. Butthe
evidence of this witness is limited to the extent of seeing
aforesaidculpritsonthe Ota ofNetraDeepProvisions. Thus,
thereisringoftruthintheevidenceofPWNo.19JaywantPatil.
123]

ItistruethatithascameincrossexaminationofPW

No.27BabasahebWaghchaure(ExecutiveMagistrate)thatatthe
timeofTestIdentificationParade,hedidnotaskPWNo.16and
PW No.19 as to whether they had seen the culprits prior to
incident.However,thatcannotbeagroundtodiscardtheentire
testimonyofPWNo.27. Isaysobecause,theMemorandumof
Test Identification Parade is a corroborative piece of evidence.
Furthermore, it cannot be forgotten that PW No.16 Rambhau
PawarandPWNo.19JaywantPatilhaveidentifiedaccusedRaju
ChintamanSonawanebeforetheCourtalso.Theidentificationof
accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane before the Court is
substantive piece of evidence. Both these witnesses have
specificallytestifiedthattheyhadnooccasiontoseetheaforesaid

-68-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

accusedpriortoholdingofTestIdentificationParade.Itistrue
that there is delay in holding the Test Identification Parade.
However,ithasbeenproperlyexplainedbytheprosecution. It
has came in the evidence of Investigating Officer PW No.44
S.P.Gaikwad,thatPWNo.16RambhauPawarhadgonetoBhopal.
He was not available for Test Identification Parade. Therefore,
his presence was secured on 8112005 for holding Test
Identification Parade. In the light of explanation given by
InvestigatingOfficerShriS.P.Gaikwad,itcannotbesaidthatthe
prosecution has deliberately delayed the Test Identification
Parade. Therefore, the delay in holding T.I.Parade dated
8112005isnotfataltotheprosecution.Forthis,reliancecanbe
placedonMullaVsStateofUttarPradesh[AIR2010SC942]
inwhichtheHon'bleSupremeCourtheldasunder:
''theevidenceoftestidentificationisadmissible
undersection9oftheIndianEvidenceAct.The
identification parade belongs to the stage of
investigation by the police. The question
whetherawitnesshasorhasnotidentifiedthe
accusedduringtheinvestigationisnotonewhich
is in itself relevant at the trial. The actual
evidenceregardingidentificationisthatwhichis
given by witnesses in Court. There is no
provision in Cr.P.C entitling the accused to
demandthatanidentificationparadeshouldbe
heldatorbeforetheinquiryofthetrial. The
factthataparticularwitnesshasbeenableto
identifytheaccusedatanidentificationparade
is only a circumstance corroborative of the
identificationinCourt.

-69-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

TheHon'bleSupremeCourtfurtherobservedthat:
''thenecessityforholdinganidentification
parade can arise only when the accused
persons are not previously known to the
witnesses. The whole idea of a test
identificationparadeisthatwitnesseswho
claimtohaveseentheculpritsatthetime
ofoccurrencearetoidentifythemfromthe
midstofotherpersonswithoutanyaidor
anyothersource.Thetestisdonetocheck
upon their veracity. In other words, the
main object of holding an identification
parade,duringtheinvestigationstage,isto
test the memory of the witnesses based
uponfirstimpressionandalsotoenablethe
prosecutiontodecidewhetheralloranyof
themcouldbecitedaseyewitnessesofthe
crime.Theidentificationproceedingsarein
the nature of tests and significantly,
therefore,thereisnoprovisionforitinthe
CodeandtheIndianEvidenceAct,1872.It
isdesirablethatatestidentificationparade
should be conducted as soon as possible
after the arrest of the accused. This
becomes necessary to eliminate the
possibilityoftheaccusedbeingshowntothe
witnesses prior to the test identification
parade.Thisisaverycommonpleaofthe
accusedand,therefore,theprosecutionhas
to be cautious to ensure that there is no
scope for making such allegation. If,
however, circumstances are beyond
control and there is some delay, it
cannot be said to be fatal to the
prosecution''

-70-

124]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

In RameshwarSinghVsStateofJ&K[AIR1972

SC102]theHon'bleSupremeCourtpleasedtoobservethatThe
identificationduringpoliceinvestigation,itmayberecalled,isnot
substantiveevidenceinlawanditcanonlybeusedforcorroborating
and contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in
Court.Theidentificationproceeding,therefore,mustbesoconducted
thattheevidencewithregardtothemwhengivenatthetrial,enable
the Court safely to form appropriate judicial opinion about its
evidentiaryvalueforthepurposeofcorroboratingorcontradicting
thestatementintheCourtoftheidentifyingwitness.(ParaNo.6)

125]

TheevidenceonrecordshowsthatPWNo.1Mahendra

Mahajan is serving as a Security Guard at Dharangaon Uban

CooperativeBank,VisanjiNagarBranchatJalgaon.TheDefence
Advocatehasnotchallengedversionofthiswitnessonthepointof
performingofhisNightShiftDutysince10.00p.mof20092005
till7.00a.m.of21092005.TheevidenceofPWNo.1that,after
completingNightDuty,hewasreturningtohishousebyJalgaon
DhuleNationalHighwayNo.6onBicycle,hasgoneunrebutted
duringhiscrossexamination. Therefore,thiswitnessappearsto
be most natural witness. It is true that PW No.1 Mahendra
Mahajanisunabletostate,outofthreepersons,whoassaulted
whom.However,itcannotbeforgottenthatthiswitnesswasnot
presentonorneartheSpotofIncidentattherelevanttime. He
witnessedtheincidentfromlongdistance,thattoo,whilepassing
by National Highway No.6. The Spot Panchnama Exh.No.299
showsthatNationalHighwayNo.6runsEastWest. TheSpotof

-71-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

incidentistowardsitsWesternSideofsaidNationalHighway.PW
No.1wasproceedingbytheMetalStripoftheNationalHighway
fromitEasternSide.Asperevidenceofthiswitness,atthetime
of incident, the trucks were passing by the National Highway.
Naturally, due to traffic, PW No.1 could not have been able to
observetheoccurrenceinpropermanner. TheSpotPanchnama
Exh.No.299 shows that, the distance in between the Spot of
IncidentandNationalHighwayNo.6is halffurlong. Itmeans
that PW No.1 was not much close to the Spot of Incident to
identifytheassailantsorVictim.PWNo.1witnessedtheincident
fromthedistanceofhalffurlong.TheMotorcycleonwhichthe
assailantswereridingpassedbythesideofPWNo.1.Heobserved
thatoneoftheassailantwasdrivingtheMotorcycleandanother
washoldingbloodstainedKnifeinhishand.PWNo.1alsocried
''TynnaPakda,TynniKhunKela''butnobodyhelpedhim.He
also made an unsuccessful attempt to chase the Motorcycle of
assailants. He also made attempt to take injured to hospital.
Whenhelearnt fromthewhisperingofthepersonsgatheredon
theSpotthat,theinjuredwasProfessorV.G.Patil,heimmediately
rushed to the house of victim and gave information about the
incident to his wife Smt.Rajani Patil. The version of
PWNo.1that,hegaveinformationabouttheincidenttoher,is
also corroborated by Court Witness No.1 Smt.Rajani Patil. Not
onlythis,PWNo.1alsoremainpresentontheSpot,tillthearrival
ofPolice. PWNo.1alsowentatCivilHospital,Jalgaon.The
evidence on record shows that after going at Civil Hospital,
Jalgaon,hefiledComplaintabouttheincidentbeforePolicewhich

-72-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

wasreducedintowritingvideExh.No.256. PWNo.1Mahendra
Mahajan is stick up to his Complaint Exh.No.256. PW No.1
appearstobea ChanceWitness. Ifthiswitnesshadtodepose
false,hecouldhavedeposedthathehasactuallyseentwoaccused
RajuPundlikMali(nowdead)andRajuChintamanSonawane
while assaulting the Victim. But the evidence of PW No.1
Maheendra Mahajan is limited to the extent of observing the
incidentfromlongdistanceandseeingtheassailantswhileleaving
theSpotonHeroHondaMotorcycle. TheevidenceofPWNo.1
Mahendra Mahajan is also supported by PW No.16 Rambhau
Pawar on material points. Therefore, the arguments of the
learnedDefenceAdvocatethat,theevidenceofPWNo.1isnot
trustworthy,cannotbeaccepted.
126]

ItissettledPrincipleofLawthatnoparticularnumber

of witnesses are required to prove the charge. The evidence

shouldbe weighedandnot tobe counted. In ChittarLal Vs
StateofRajastan(AIR2003SC3590)theHon'bleSupreme
Courtpleasedtoholdasunder:
'' Evidenceofthepersonwhosenamedid
not figure in the FIR as witness does not
perforcebecomesuspect. Therecanbeno
hard and fast rule that the names of all
witnesses more particularly eyewitnesses
shouldbeindicatedintheFIR.''
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further
observedthat:

-73-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

'' The legislative recognition of the fact that no

particularnumberofwitnessescanbeinsisteduponis
amply reflected in S.134 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 ( in short ' Evidence Act '). Administration of
Justice can be affected and hampered if number of
witnessesweretobeinsistedupon.Itisnotseldomthat
a crime has been committed in the presence of one
witness. Leaving aside those cases which are not of
unknown occurrence where determination of guilt
dependsentirelyoncircumstantialevidence.Ifplurality
ofwitnesseswouldhavebeenthelegislativeintentcases
wherethe testimonyof a singlewitnessonlycouldbe
available,innumberofcrimesoffenderwouldhavegone
unpunished. Itisthequalityofevidenceofthesingle
witness whose testimony has to be tested on the
touchstoneofcredibilityandreliability.Ifthetestimony
isfoundtobereliable,thereisnolegalimpedimentto
convicttheaccusedonsuchproof.Itisthequalityand
not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for
proving or disproving a fact. This position has been
settledbyaseriesofdecisions''.(ParaNo.7).

127]

In Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar Vs State of Kerala

[1981Cr.L.J743,theHon'bleSupremeCourtpleasedtoobserve
that, Itisnodoubttruethattheprosecutionevidencedoessuffer
from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there but that is a
shortcomingfromwhichnocriminalcaseisfree.Themainthingto
beseeniswhetherthoseinconsistencies.etc.,gototherootofthe
matterorpertaintoinsignificantaspectsthereof.Intheformalcase,
thedefencemaybejustifiedinseekingadvantageoftheincongruities
obtainingin theevidence. Inthelatter,however,nosuchbenefit
maybeavailabletoit.Thatisastatutorymethodofappreciationof
evidenceincriminalcases

-74-

128]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

IntheCaseinhand,asdiscussedabove,theevidence

of PW No.16 Rambhau Pawar or PW No.1 Mahendra Mahajan,

doesnotsufferfrommaterialdiscrepancies.Therefore,itinspires
confidenceinthemindofCourt.
129]

Now it is to be seen whether accused Raju Pundlik

Mali(nowdead)andRajuChintamanSonawanehadintentionto
killtheVictimornot.Itissettledlawthatthe'intentiontokill'
istobegatheredfromthefactsandcircumstancesofeachCase.
130]

In Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Vs State of

AndhraPradesh[AIR2006SC3010] theHon'ble Supreme

Courtpleasedtoobservethat''theintentiontocausedeath,canbe
gatheredgenerallyfromacombination ofafew orseveralof the
followingamount,othercircumstances:

i)

natureoftheweaponused;

ii)

whethertheweaponwascarriedbytheaccusedorwas
pickedupfromthespot;

iii)

whethertheblowisaimedatavitalpartofthebody;

iv)

theamountofforceemployedincausinginjuries

v)

whethertheactwasinthecourseofsudden
quarrelorsuddenfightorfreeforallfight;

vi)

whethertheincidentoccursbychanceorwhether
therewasanypremediation;

vii)

whethertherewasanypriorenmityorwhether
thedeceasedwasastranger;

-75-

viii)
ix)

x)

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

whethertherewasanygraveorsuddenprovocation,
andifso,thecauseforsuchprovocation;
whetheritwasintheheatofpassion;

whetherthepersoninflictingtheinjuryhastaken
undueadvantageorhasactedinacruelandunusual
manner;

xi) Whethertheaccuseddealtasinglebloworseveral
blows.
The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and
theremaybeseveralotherspecialcircumstanceswithreferenceto
individualcaseswhichmaythrowlightonthequestionofintention.
Bethatasitmay''.
131]

InStateofRajasthanVsDhoolSingh(AIR2004SC1264)

theHon'bleSupremeCourtpleasedtoholdasunder:
''Thenumberofinjuriesisirrelevant.Itisnotalwaysthe
determiningfactorinascertainingtheintention.Itisthe
natureofinjury,thepartofbodywhereitiscaused,the
weapon used in causing such injury which are the
indicatorsofthefactwhethertherespondentcausedthe
deathofthedeceasedwithanintentionofcausingdeath
ornot.Intheinstantcase,itistruethattherespondent
haddealtonesingleblowwithaswordwhichisasharp
edgedweaponmeasuringabout3feetinlengthonavital
partofbodynamelytheneck.Thisactoftherespondent
thoughsolitaryinnumberandhadseveredsternoclinoid
muscle,external jugular vein, internal jugular vein and
common carotid artery completely leading to almost
instantaneous death. Any reasonableperson with any
stretch of imagination can come to the conclusion that
suchinjuryonsuchavitalpartofthebodywithasharp
edgedweaponwouldcausedeath.Suchaninjuryinour
opinionnotonlyexhibitstheintentionoftheattackerin

-76-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

causingthedeathofthevictim,butalsotheknowledgeof
theattackerastothelikelyconsequenceofsuchattack
whichcouldbenoneotherthancausingthedeathofthe
victim''.(ParaNo.13)
132]

As discussed above, the evidence of PW No.16

RambhauPawarthat,deceasedaccusedRajuPundlikMalicaught
hold the victim and accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane gave
blows of knife on his abdomen, chest and throat, has gone
unrebutted during his crossexamination. PW No.16 has
identifiedaccusedRajuChintamanSonawaneandaccusedRaju
Pundlik Mali ( now dead ) in Test Identification Parade.
PWNo.16hasalsoidentifiedaccusedRajuChintamanSonawane
beforetheCourt. TheevidenceofPWNo.16RambhauPawar
that,accusedRajuChintamanSonawanegaveblowsofKnifeon
theabdomen,chestandthroatoftheVictim,isalsocorroborated
bymedicalevidence. AspertheMedicalEvidence,theinjuries
sustained by Victim were ante mortem in nature and were
sufficienttocausehisdeathintheordinarycourseofnature.The
prosecution has proved beyond doubt that, the Blood Group of
Victim was ''O'' and the blood of ''O'' Group was found on the
seizedKnifeArt.'15'aswellasontheclothesofVictim.TheSpot
ofIncidentisalsodulyproved.
133]

There is ample evidence on record to indicate that

accused Raju Chintaman Soawane and deceased accused Raju

PundlikMali,bothwerepresentontheSpot.Oneofthemcaught
holdtheVictimandanothergaveblowsofknifeonvitalparts,

-77-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

of his body. It means that, there was collusion between Raju

PundlikMali(nowdead)andRajuChintamanSonawanetocause
the death of Victim. Therefore, the the evidence of seizure of
KnifeArt.''15''andMotorcyclewhichareusedforcommissionof
crimeasperdisclosurestatementmadebydeceasedaccusedRaju
Pundlik Mali, can definitely be used against accused Raju
ChintamanSonawane.
134]

AsperColumnNo.9ofArrestPanchnamaExh.305,the

heightofdeceasedaccusedRajuPundlikMaliwas6Feeti.e.,180
Cms. As per Column No.9 of Arrest Panchnama Exh.304 the
heightofpresentaccusedRajuChintamanSonawaneis163Cms.
ItmeansthatdeceasedaccusedRajuPundlikMaliwastallerin
comparisontoaccusedRajuChintamanSonawane.
135]

Thusthere isdirect andcircumstantialevidence on

record to connect accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane with the

murderofvictim.Therefore,theprosecutionneednotprovethe
motivebehindthecrime.

136]

Forthe reasonsdiscussedabove andconsideringthe

ratio laid down in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai, Mulla,

Rameshwar Singh, Chittar Lal, Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar,
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja and Dhool Singh (cited
Supra),theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondallreasonabledoubts
that, in the morning of 21092005 at Manraj Park, Jalgaon
accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane and Raju Pundlik Mali

-78-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

(nowdead)mademurderousattackbymeansofknifeonthe
Victim and they knowingly and intentionally caused his death.
Thus,IrecordaffirmativefindingtoPointNo.2.

AstoPointNo.3:

137]

While recording finding to Point No.2, I hold that ,

accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane and Raju Pundlik Mali

( now dead )both have intentionally or knowingly caused the
deathofProf.VishramG.Patil.Therefore,itwillhavetoexamine
whethertheactofthesetwoaccusedfallsunderSection34,or
underSection107,orundersection109orundersection120B
oftheIndianPenalCode?.
138]

TheHon'bleSupremeCourthadoccasiontoconsider

thescopeofSections34,107,109and120BoftheIndianPenal
Codeinthefollowingdecisions:
139]

InNoorMohammadMohdYusufMominVs State

ofMaharashtra[AIR1972SC885].TheHon'bleApexCourt
pleasedtoobserveasunder:
''So far S.34, Indian Penal Code is concerned, it
embodiestheprincipleofjointliabilityinthedoingof
a criminal act, the essence if that liability being the
existenceofacommonintention.Participationinthe
commission of the offence in furtherance of the
commonintentioninvitesitsapplication.Section109,
IndianPenalCodeontheotherhandmaybeattracted
eveniftheabettorisnotpresentwhentheoffence

-79-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

abettediscommittedprovidedthathehasinstigated
thecommissionoftheoffenceorhasengagedwithone
more other persons in a conspiracy to commit an
offenceandpursuanttothatconspiracysomeactor
illegalomissiontakesplaceorhasintentionallyaided
the commission of an offence by an act or illegal
omission. TurningtothechargeunderSection120B
IndianPenalCode,Criminalconspiracypostulatesan
agreement between two or more persons to do, or
causetobedone,anillegalactoranactwhichisnot
illegal,byillegal,means.Itdiffersfromotheroffences
inthatmereagreementismadeanoffenceevenifno
step is taken to carry out that agreement. Though
thereiscloseassociationofconspiracywithincitement
and abetment the substantive offence of criminal
conspiracy is some what wider in amplitude than
abement by conspiracy as contemplated by Sec.107
I.P.C. A conspiracy from its very nature is generally
hatchedinsecret.Itis,therefore,extremelyrarethat
direct evidence in proof of conspiracy can be
forthcomingfromwhollydisinterestedquartersorfrom
utter strangers. But, like other offences, criminal
conspiracy can beproved by circumstantial evidence.
Indeed in most cases, proof of conspiracy is largely
inferential though the inference must be founded on
solidfacts.Surroundingcircumstancesandantecedent
and subsequent conduct, among other factors,
constituterelevantmaterial. Infactbecauseofthe
difficulties in having direct evidence of criminal
conspiracy, once reasonable ground is shown for
believingthattwoormorepersonshaveconspiredto
commitanoffencethenanythingdonebyanyoneof
theminreferencetotheircommonintentionafterthe
sameisentertainedbecomes,accordingtothelawof
evidence,relevantforprovingbothconspiracyandthe
offencescommittedpursuantthereto''.(ParaNo.7)

-80-

140]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

In KeharSinghVsTheState(DelhiAdmn.)[AIR

1988SC1883] theHon'bleSupremeCourtpleasedtoheldas
under:
''Whenanaccusedisapartytoacriminalconspiracy
whichledtocommissionofoffence(murderininstant
cases)byothercoaccused,itcannotbesaidthatthe
accused(conspirator)whodidnothimselfparticipate
in the commission of the offence could not be
sentencedforthemainoffencei.e.,murderandthat
he could be sentenced only for abetment for the
offenceinabsenceofchargeunderS.109againsthim.
Thereisvitaldifferencebetween(i)abetmentinthe
conspiracy, (ii) criminal conspiracy. The former is
defined under the second clause of S.107 and the
latteris under S. 120A. Thegist of theoffenceof
criminalconspiracycreatedunderS.120Aisabare
agreementtocommitanoffence. Ithasbeenmade
punishableunderS.120B. Theoffenceofabetment
created under the second Clause of S.107 requires
that there must be something more than a mere
conspiracy. There must be some act or illegal
omissioninpursuanceofthatconspiracy.Thatwould
be evident by the wordings of S.107 (Secondly) ''
engages in anyConspiracy..... for thedoingof that
thing, if an act of illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy..................''. The
punishments for these two categories of crimes are
alsoquitedifferent.S.109IPCisconcernedonlywith
the punishment of abetments for which no express
provision ismade under thePenalCode. Acharge
under S.109 should, therefore, be along with some
othersubstantiveoffencecommittedinconsequenceof
abetment. The offence of criminal conspiracy is, on
theotherhand,anindependentoffence.Itismade
punishableunderS.120BforwhichaChargeunder
S.109IPCisunnecessaryandindeed,inappropriate.

-81-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

TheHon'bleSupremeCourtfurtherobservedthat:
''Themostimportantingredientoftheoffence
ofconspiracyistheagreementbetweentwoor
morepersonstodoanillegalact.Theillegal
actmayormaynotbedoneinpursuanceof
agreement, but the very agreement is an
offenceandispunishable''.

141]

In the following two Cases, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had an occasion to consider what kind of evidence is

requiredtoproveCriminalConspiracy.
142]

In Vijayan alias Ranjan Vs State of Kerala (AIR

1999SC1086)theHon'bleSupremeCourtpleasedtoheldas
under:
'' Tobringhomethechargeofconspiracywithinthe
ambitofSection120BoftheIndianPenalCode,itis
necessary to establish that there was an agreement
betweenthepartiesfordoinganunlawfulact.Itisno
doubttruethatitisdifficulttoestablishconspiracyby
direct evidence and, therefore, from established facts
inference could be drawn, but there must be some
materialfromwhichitwouldbereasonabletoestablish
aconnectionbetweentheallegedconspiracyandtheact
donepursuanttothesaidconspiracy''.

143]

In Yash

Pal Mittal Vs State of Punjab [

AIR 1977

SC2433 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased to observe as

under:

-82-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

''The offence of criminal conspiracy under S.120A is a

distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913
Chapt. VA of the Penal Code. The very agreement,
concertorleagueistheingredientoftheoffence.Itisnot
necessarythatalltheconspiratorsmustknoweachand
every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co
conspiratorsinthemainobjectoftheconspiracy. There
may be so many devices and techniques adopted to
achievethecommongoaloftheconspiracyandtheremay
bedivisionofperformancesinthechainofactionswith
one object to achieve the real end of which every
collaborator must be aware and in which each one of
themmustbeinterested.Theremustbeunityofobjector
purposebuttheremaybepluralityofmeanssometimes
evenunknowntooneanother,amongsttheconspirators.
Inachievingthegoalseveraloffencesmaybecommitted
bysomeoftheconspiratorsevenunknowntotheothers''.

144]

IntheCaseinhand,thereisunrebuttedtestimonyof

PW No.19 Jaywant Kailash Patil that, on the day of incident,

accusedRajuSonawaneandRajuMali(nowdead)werepresent
neartheSpotofIncidentsince7.00a.m.Theyhadalsobrought
dangerousweaponlikeKnifewiththem. Theywerewaitingfor
thevictim.AssoonasvictimreachedtotheSpot,theyrestrained
hisCarandcommittedmurderousattackonhimbyKnife.The
blowsofKnifeweregivenonthevitalpartsofbodyofvictimi.e.,
neck,chestandabdomen.Atthetimeofcommissionofoffence,
accused Raju Pundlik Mali (now dead) and Raju Chintaman
Sonawanehadtakencarethat,nobodyshouldidentifythem.For
thesaidpurpose,theyworeHelmets.Unfortunately,duringthe
scuffle,theirHelmetsfelldown.Asaresultofwhich,PWNo.16

-83-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

RambhauPawarcouldobservetheirfacesinbroaddaylightfrom
shortdistance. TheseaccusedusedHeroHondaMotorcyclefor
comingtothespotofincidentandfleeingawaytherefrom.There
is nothing on record to show that, these accused were having
previousenmitywiththevictim.ItispertinenttonotethatVictim
was unarmed. It is not the case of defence that, there was
provocationbydeceasedortherewassuddenfight.Itisalsonot
the case of defence, they made attack on the Victim in their
privatedefence. ThemotivebehindtheCrimeiswithinspecial
knowledge of accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane and Raju
PundlikMali(nowdead).Onthisbackground,itcannotbesaid
that,theactofaccusedRajuPundlikMali(nowdead)andRaju
ChintamanSonawanefallsundersections34,107or109ofthe
IndianPenalCode.Itdefinitelycomesundersection120Bofthe
IndianPenalCode.
145]

There cannot be direct evidence of Criminal

Conspiracyineachandeverycase,becausetheconspiraciesare
hatched secretly. Therefore, the Criminal Conspiracy is to be
gatheredonthebasisoffactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.
146]

Thus,IholdthataccusedRajuChintamanSonawane

and accused Raju Pundlik Mali ( deceased ) hatched criminal

conspiracyandcommittedthemurderofVictimProfessorVishram
G.Patil.Hence,IrecordaffirmativefindingtoPointNo.3.

-84-

147]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

As discussed above, the Charge for the offence

punishableu/s302and120BoftheIndianPenalCodeisduly
proved against accused Raju Chintaman Sonawane, beyond all
reasonabledoubts. Consequently,heisliableforconviction. He
mustbeheardonthepointofsentence.Therefore,Ipausehere
forhearingaccusedRajuChintamanSonawane,onthepointof
sentence.

Date:14112014.

148]

(D.J.Shegokar)
AdditionalSessionsJudge1,Jalgaon

At this juncture, the learned Advocate for C.B.I

Mr.Salvisubmittedthat,hewantstimetilltomorrowformaking
argumentsonthequantumofsentence. Similarrequestismade
byMr.Kaul,learneddefence. Inviewthereof,pronouncementof
sentenceisreservedtilltomorrowi.e.15112014inordertohear
theprosecutionandguiltyaccusedonthepointofsentence.

Date:14112014.

149]

(D.J.Shegokar)
AdditionalSessionsJudge1,Jalgaon

The Jail Authorities have produced accused Raju

Chintaman Sonawane before Court today i.e., on 15112015.

Iheardhimonthepointofsentence.Hesubmittedthathehasno
concernwiththiscrime. HeisdetainedinJailsincelast9Years
and45Days. Hismotherisagedabout70Years. Hehastwo
daughters who are aged about 12 and 10 years. Nobody is

-85-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

availableathishousefortakingcareofhisoldmotherandminor
daughters. Therefore, lenient view may kindly be taken while
imposingthesentence.
150]

Mr.Kaul,thelearnedDefenceAdvocatesubmittedthat,

accusedRajuChintamanSonawaneisyoungman.Heshouldget
opportunityofimprovinghmself.Hismotherisold.Hehastwo
minordaughters.Heisonlybreadearnerofhisfamily.Thecase
doesnotfallinthecategoryof ''RarestofRareCase''. The
Imprisonment for Life is Rule and Capital Punishment is an
Exception to it. Therefore, lenient view may be taken while
imposing sentence against accused. He relied on Subhash
RamkumarBind@VakilVsStateofMaharashtra(2003CRI.L.J.
443SC)andPremSagarVsDharambir(2004CRI.L.J.17SC).
151]

On the contrary, Mr.Salvi, learned Special Public

ProsecutorfortheC.B.IsubmittedthattheVictimwasProfessorin
English. He was elected as President of CongressI Party for
JalgaonDistrict.HehadlargenumberoffollowersintheDistrict.
There was no enmity in between accused Raju Chintaman
SonawaneandVictim. Inspiteofit,hecommittedcoldblooded
murderbyhatchingconspiracy.Thecaseis'RarestofRareCase.
Therefore,theaccusedisnotentitledtoleniency.Heisliablefor
deterrent punishment like death sentence. In support of his
contention,thelearnedSpecialPublicProsecutorplacerelianceon
Machhi Singh Vs State of Punjab ( AIR 1983 SC 957 ),
KrishnaMochiVsStateofBihar(2002(6)SCC81).

-86-

152]

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

I have given thoughtful consideration to the

submissionsmadeby learnedDefence Advocateas well as the

Learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. The facts and
circumstancesdoesnotindicatethat,thisCaseisararestofrare
oneforimposingDeathSentence.ItissettledPrincipleofLaw
that Death Sentence is Exception and Imprisonment for Life is
Rule.Hence,Ipassfollowingorder:
Order
(a)

AccusedRajuChintamanSonawane(Mali)
isherebyconvictedu/s235(2)oftheCodeof
CriminalProcedurefortheoffencepunishable
u/s302oftheIndianPenalCodeandheis
sentencedtosufferImprisonmentforLife
andtopayFineofRs.5000/(Rs.Fivethousand
only),Indefault,tosufferR.IforOneYear.

(b)

AccusedRajuChintamanSonawane(Mali)
isherebyfurtherconvictedu/s235(2)ofthe
CodeofCriminalProcedurefortheoffence
punishableu/s120BoftheIndianPenalCode
andheissentencedtosufferRigorous
ImprisonmentforaperiodofTenYears
andtopayFineRs.2000/(Rs.Twothousand
only),Indefault,tosufferfurtherR.I
forSixMonths.

(c)

TheSubstantiveSentencesof
Imprisonmentshallrunconcurrently.

(d)

AccusedisentitledforSetOffu/s428
oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.

-87-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

(e) TheTrialoftheOffenceshall
proceedagainstAccusedLiladhar

PurushottamNarkhede&Damodar
JagnnathLokhande.Theyshall
remainpresentbeforetheCourton
8122014.
(f)

ThefateofTrialofnewlyArrayed
AccusednamelyGajendrasing
NarayanPatil&UlhasVasudeo
Patilshalldependuponthedecision
ofCriminalRevisionApplication
Nos.165of2014and166of2014
pendingbeforeHon'bleHighCourt
ofJudicatureBombay,Benchat
Aurangabad.

(g)

TheSeizedPropertybepreserved
fortrialofremainingaccused.

(h)

ACertifiedcopyoftheJudgment
besuppliedtoAccusedRaju
ChintamanSonawane,freeofcosts.

(D.J.Shegokar)
Date:15112014.
AdditionalSessionsJudge1,Jalgaon

-88-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

-89-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006

-90-

Judgment in S.C. No.8 of 2006