Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2008

Nana Keshav Lagad    ….Appellant

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra   ….Respondent

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1011 OF 2008

Balu and Another ….Appellants

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra   ….Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. These two appeals are against the common judgment of the  

High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, in Cri.A.No.611 of 2003,  

dated 16.01.2006.  

2. The  appellant  in  Crl.A.No.1010  of  2008  is  A4  and  the  

appellants in Crl.A.No.1011 of 2008 are A2 and A3. In all,  four  

accused were prosecuted and convicted by the learned Sessions  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           1 of 22

Page 2

Judge. The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court  

against  the  conviction  and sentence  imposed on them by the  

learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.191 of 2002, by its  

judgment dated 21.08.2003.

3. All the accused were convicted for offences under Section 302  

read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of  

I.P.C.  They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for  

life,  apart  from payment  of  fine  of  Rs.500/-  and  in  default  to  

undergo  further  rigorous  imprisonment  for  six  months  for  the  

offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and one  

year rigorous imprisonment,  along with fine of  Rs.300/-  and in  

default  to  undergo  one  month  rigorous  imprisonment  for  the  

offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of  I.P.C.   The  

appellants stated to have paid the fine amount on 21.08.2003  

itself. The High Court having upheld the conviction and sentence  

imposed  against  the  appellants,  they  have come forward with  

these appeals. The first accused-Keshav died and the remaining  

accused are before us.  

4. As the genesis of the case of the prosecution goes, all  the  

accused persons, the complainant Santosh Ramchandra Lagad,  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           2 of 22

Page 3

who is  the son of  the deceased Ramachandra Lagad,  were all  

residents  of  the  same  village,  Lagadwadi.   They  owned  and  

possessed agricultural lands adjacent to each other.  There were  

disputes, as regards the use of way to their respective lands. The  

deceased Ramachandra Lagad stated to have filed a suit against  

the  appellants  at  Shrigonda  Court  for  injunction.   They  also  

approached other authorities wirh regard to protection of their  

right of way to go to their agricultural lands.  It appears that at  

one stage they resorted to hunger strike for the redressal of their  

grievances.   At that time, the police interfered and the accused  

were directed to  allow the deceased and his  family  members,  

including the complainant  to use the old way as an access to  

their land, till a decision was arrived at in the Civil Court.   

5. It  was alleged that in spite of  such direction by the police,  

there was violation at the instance of the accused persons. On  

04.10.2002, at about 7.00 a.m., when the complainant P.W.4 and  

his  deceased  father,  were  proceeding  towards  their  field  for  

sowing maize seeds, the first accused stated to have obstructed  

them from proceeding on the disputed way.  He also stated to  

have abused and threatened the complainant and his deceased  

father.   P.W.4  and  his  father  returned  back  to  their  house.  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           3 of 22

Page 4

Thereafter, the deceased went to Shrigonda Court to attend the  

hearing of the civil case, while the complainant P.W.4 went out  

looking after his cattle.   

6. At about 5.15 p.m., on the same day, after the complainant  

P.W.4 returned to his house after watering onion crops, his sister  

came to know from one Bapu Dada Ghadage that the accused  

persons were waiting at Kolgaon Lagadwadi road for her father,  

Ramachandra Lagad, to return to his village with an intention to  

assault him.  The complainant was therefore, asked to rush to the  

spot  immediately.   The  complainant  P.W.4,  stated  to  have  

reached the spot in a bicycle and that according to him, when he  

was about to reach the spot i.e., from a distance of about 200  

meters from the spot, he saw all the four accused persons along  

with one Ganesh Sambhaji Lagad and Sandeep Sambhaji Lagad,  

beating his father Ramachandra Lagad, while at the same time  

abusing him.  It is also claimed that P.W.4 himself along with his  

deceased father,  Ramachandra Lagad, was attacked with cycle  

chain and stone. The accused also stated to have threatened the  

complainant  and  his  father  to  face  dire  consequences  if  they  

continue  to  use the disputed pathway.  At  that  time,  one Raju  

came to the rescue of P.W.4 in his motorcycle, who interfered and  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           4 of 22

Page 5

separated the complainant from the clutches of the accused.  The  

complainant noted his father having sustained bleeding injuries  

over his head and other parts of the body, returned back to his  

village  to  fetch  a  jeep  taxi,  in  which  he  took  his  father  to  

Shrigonda police station.  As directed by the police, P.W.4 took  

his father to the rural hospital where, the doctors declared him  

dead.  P.W.4 was also examined by the doctor who gave him first-

aid treatment and thereafter, P.W.4 lodged a complaint with the  

police.   

7. The complaint was registered as CR.No.249 of 2002, against  

the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324,  

504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C., as well as Section 37(a)  

read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.   

8. P.W.16, A.P.I. Rajendra Narhari Padwal conducted the inquest,  

visited the spot of the incident, collected his blood stained shirt  

and soil, recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested  

the accused. Based on the admissible portion of the confession  

statement made by the appellants, cycle chain and stones were  

seized in the presence of panch witnesses.  The clothes of the  

accused Keshav, which contained blood stains, the clothes of the  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           5 of 22

Page 6

deceased and the blood mixed soil collected from the spot, the  

weapons used for the crime and the blood sample, along with the  

clothes of the deceased were sent for chemical analysis.  Charge-

sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First  

Class, Shrigonda, who committed the case to the Sessions Court.  

9. Before  the  Sessions  Court,  16 witnesses  were  examined in  

support  of  the  prosecution.  P.W.1  and  P.W.2  who  were  panch  

witnesses, turned hostile.  P.W.3 was another panch witness to  

support the recovery of cycle chain in Exs.22, 23, 24, 25 and 26.  

P.W.4 is  the complainant  who is  the son of  the deceased and  

injured  eyewitness.  P.W.5  is  another  eye-witness.  P.W.6  was  

Dr. Namdeo Sopan Shinde, who conducted the postmortem of the  

deceased, and who also treated P.W.4.  Ex.35 is the postmortem  

certificate and Ex.37 is the injury certificate of P.W.4.  P.W.7 is  

another  panch  witness  through  whom  Exs.38  and  39  were  

marked.   P.W.13  is  the  mother  of  the  complainant.  P.W.16  is  

another  witness  to  prove  the  inquest  report  Ex.50  and  arrest  

panchanama Exs.54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61 and 62.  

10. The Trial Court on a detailed analysis of the evidence, as well  

as the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and other  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           6 of 22

Page 7

accused, found all the accused guilty of the offence falling under  

Section  302  read  with  Section  34  of  I.P.C.  and  for  offence  

punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.  The  

High Court  having confirmed the conviction and sentence,  the  

appellants are before us.   

11. We  heard  Mr.  Sushil  Karanjkar,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants.   We  also  heard  Mr.  Shankar  Chillarage,  learned  

counsel for the respondent State.

12. Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for the appellants in his  

submissions contended, after making reference to the F.I.R., that  

in the case on hand the conviction was mainly based on the sole  

eye-witness,  P.W.4  and  that  having  regard  to  the  various  

discrepancies in his evidence, he could not have been present  

and witnessed the incident.  The learned counsel contended that  

in  the  F.I.R.,  P.W.4  did  not  make  any  reference  as  to  which  

weapon  was  used  by  which  accused  and  that  he  named  six  

persons, while in his oral evidence, he left out two of the names.  

The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  contended  that  the  

injuries on the deceased, as well as P.W.4 and the weapons used,  

do  not  correlate  with  each  other.   The  learned  counsel  by  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           7 of 22

Page 8

referring to the evidence of P.W.3, who was a panch witness for  

the recovery of cycle chain and stone, contended that the same  

was not fully established.  The learned counsel pointed out that  

the Trial Court without any supporting expert evidence concluded  

that the shirt of the appellant in Crl.A.No.1010 of 2008 and the  

first accused in Crl.A.No.1011 of 2008, contained human blood,  

which  was  not  true.   It  was  also  contended  that  the  whole  

conviction was based on the evidence of  P.W.4,  as  an injured  

eyewitness and that the version of the said witnesses was not  

correlated by any other legally acceptable evidence.   Lastly, it  

was contended that Section 34 of I.P.C. was not attracted and,  

therefore, on that ground as well the conviction was liable to be  

set aside.  The learned counsel relied upon Vadivelu Thevar vs.  

The State of Madras - AIR 1957 SC 614 and Abdul Sayeed vs.  

State of Madhya Pradesh - (2010) 10 SCC 259, in support of  

his submissions.   

13. As against the above submissions, the learned counsel for  

the State contended that the case squarely fell under Section 300  

thirdly, which is duly established by the evidence of the doctor  

who had made a categorical statement that the injuries caused  

the death.  The learned counsel for the State further contended  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           8 of 22

Page 9

that apart from the evidence of P.W.4, the evidence of P.W.5 who  

was another eyewitness, supported the case of the prosecution,  

apart from the medical evidence and the proof of the weapons  

used by the accused.  The learned counsel therefore contended  

that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants was  

fully justified and the judgment impugned therefore, does not call  

for interference.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, as well  

as  the  learned  counsel  for  the  State  and  having  perused  the  

impugned judgment of the High Court, as well as that of the Trial  

Court and the other material  papers placed on record, we find  

force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the State.   

15. When we consider the submissions of the learned counsel for  

the appellants, the sole contention was that the only evidence of  

P.W.4, who was examined as an eyewitness to the incident was  

closely related to the deceased and since there were so many  

contradictions  in  his  version,  in  the  absence  of  proper  

corroboration by any other witnesses or other evidence, the Trial  

Court as well as the High Court ought not to have relied upon his  

sole testimony for the purpose of convicting the appellants.

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           9 of 22

Page 10

16. We considered the said submission and we find that the said  

submission  does  not  merit  acceptance.   We  can  briefly  

summarize the case of the prosecution based on the evidence  

placed before the Trial Court.  We must state that the Trial Court  

has considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants  

very minutely and has given justifiable reasons with supporting  

factors in order to reject each and every one of the submissions  

made on behalf  of the appellants.   We also find that the Trial  

Court, as well as the High Court have not only relied upon the  

sole testimony of P.W.4, but upon very many other supporting  

materials such as oral, documentary, as well as material objects  

to support its conclusions.  It has also made a detailed reference  

to the medical evidence and has found that the medical evidence  

fully supported the ocular evidence and therefore, the ultimate  

conclusion  of  finding the appellants  guilty  of  the offence,  was  

fully established.   

17. In  order  to  appreciate  the  submissions,  as  well  as  the  

conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court, in the foremost, it will  

be appropriate to refer to the injuries sustained by the deceased,  

as well as the complainant.  The injuries found on the body of the  

deceased  were  noted  in  the  postmortem report  Ex.35.   There  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           10 of 22

Page 11

were as many as 19 injuries on the dead body of Ramachandra  

Lagad viz.,

“(1)  Whole  of  scapular,  inter-scapular  and  intra- scapular region with linear abrasion like left scapula   and 2 in numbers of size 10 cm x 1 cm of 7 cm x 1 cm.

(i) Left scapular region 3 in numbers each 12 cm x   10 cm (ii) Inter-scapular region 2 in numbers of size 10  cm x 1 cm each. (iii) Intra-scapular region 2 in no. each of 15 cm x   1 cm.

(2)  Contusion  on  right  lumber  region  of  back   extending  lower  region  on  back  with  abrasion  on   surface.

(3)  Contusion  on  left  lumber  region  brownish  with   abrasion on surface.

(4) Contusion on upper part of left thigh posteriorally   10 cm x ½ cm with abrasion on surface.

(5) Lenear abrasion on right buttock 4 cm x 2 cm.

(6)  Abrasion  on  post  surface  of  right  thigh  4  in   numbers each of 1 cm x 1 cm.

(7) Abrasion on post surface of left knee 5 cm x 1 cm.

(8) C.L.W. on upper part of occiput 2 cm x ½ cm by   bone deep oozing was present.

(9) Contusion on lateral region of right thigh 7 in no.   each of 1 cm x ½ cm

(10) C.L.W. on right thigh laterally lower part 2 cm x ½  cm x ½ cm clot present.

(11) Contused abrasion on right calf 5 cm x 1 cm.

(12) Abrasion on post region of right elbow 5 in no.   each of 1 cm x 1 cm.

(13) Abrasion below left knee 2 cm x 1 cm.

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           11 of 22

Page 12

(14) Contusion on right arm laterally 1 ½ cm x ½ cm.

(15) Abrasion on scrotum right side 2 cm x 2 cm.

(16) Contused abrasion right shoulder 6 cm and 1 cm. (17) Abrasion shin of tibia right leg 16 cm x 1 cm with   abrasions on surface.

(18) Abrasion on upper part of right eye-brow 2 cm x   ½ cm.

(19) Abrasion on lateral region of left elbow 3 cm x 1   cm.”

Apart from the 19 external injuries, Ex.35 has also referred  

to 4 internal injuries, which are as under:

“(1) Fracture of tibio fibula on upper part of left ankle   joint.

(2)  Fracture  of  right  mandibular  angle  and  left   mandibular angle.

(3) Fracture of right 3rd, 4th and 5th rib anteriorly.

(4) Fracture of left 3rd, 4th, 5th rib anteriorly.”

18. As far as P.W.4, the injured eyewitness is concerned, he has  

suffered as many as 11 injuries, which have been noted by the  

very  same  doctor,  P.W.6,  in  the  injury  certificate  marked  as  

Ex.37.  The injuries were as under :

“(1)  Contused  abrasion  on  posterior  region  of  left   forearm 4  in  No.  each  of  1  ½ cm x  1  cm redness   present.

(2) Contusion on lateral region of left arm 8 cm x 1 cm   chain mark seen.

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           12 of 22

Page 13

(3)  Contusion  on  posterior  region  of  left  shoulder   extending on back 11 cm x 1 cm redness was present.   Chain mark was also present.

(4) Contusion on anterior region of right shoulder near   axilla 3 cm x ½ cm and swelling was present.

(5) Contused abrasion on lateral region of chest lower   part left side 10 cm x 1 cm bleeding was present.

(6) Contused abrasion on left suprascapular region 5   in No. each of 12 cm x 1 cm chain mark seen.

(7)  Contusion  on  lumber  region  of  back  right  side   extending on left lumber region 24 cm x 1 cm. Chain   mark present.

(8)  Contusion  abrasion  on  medial  region  of  right   scapula  extending  obliquely  to  intrascapular  and  supra scapular region 2 in no. each of size 20 cm x 1   cm redness was present. Chain mark present.

(9) Contused abrasion on right lumber region vertical   6 cm x 1 cm. chain mark present.

(10) Contused abrasion right scapular 2 in no. each of   2 ½ cm and 2 cm and bleeding was present.

(11) Contusion on middle of right arm posteriorly 6 cm  x 1 cm swelling present.”

19. The doctor in his evidence has stated that all the injuries on  

the body of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature; that there  

was intra cerebral hemorrhage and that the cause of death was  

shock due to hemorrhage in intra cerebral  region and thoracic  

cavity due to injury through thoracic and head.

20. He also stated that the injuries on the body of the deceased  

were caused by hard and blunt objects and that injuries Nos.1, 2,  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           13 of 22

Page 14

3, 4 and 16 were possible due to assault by cycle chain, while the  

other  injuries  were  possible  due  to  pelting  of  stones.   He  

specifically stated that injuries Nos.18, 19 and 20 were possible  

due to assault by a stone, which was marked before the Court.  

Ultimately, the doctor stated that the injuries were sufficient in  

the ordinary course to cause the death of a person.

21. In  so  far  as  the  injuries  found  on  the  body  of  P.W.4  is  

concerned, P.W.6 doctor deposed that these injuries were caused  

by hard and blunt objects and cycle chain.   

22. On  behalf  of  the  appellants,  it  was  contended  that  the  

evidence of P.W.4, does not merit any credence, in as much as  

there were lot of discrepancies as between his complaint dated  

04.10.2002 and his evidence submitted before the Court.

23. To  consider  the  said  submission,  when  we  examine  the  

statement found in the complaint of P.W.4, we find that he has  

narrated  the  enmity  that  was  prevailing  between  his  family,  

headed by his father, the deceased, and the accused in regard to  

the right of way to reach their agricultural land and as to what  

exactly transpired on 04.10.2002 at 7.00 a.m.  The material facts  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           14 of 22

Page 15

stated by him were that, while in the morning when P.W.4 and his  

father wanted to reach their field for sowing maize seeds, they  

were obstructed by the first accused, abused and threatened not  

to  use  the  way  and  therefore  they  returned  back  home.  

Thereafter, according to him, the deceased father went to attend  

the Court proceedings, while he had gone to the field along with  

his cattle.  It was further stated that in the evening, he returned  

back  by 5.15 p.m.  and that  through his  neighbor,  Bapu Dada  

Ghadage,  his  sister  informed  him  about  the  factum  of  the  

appellants,  along  with  other  accused  waiting  at  Kolgaon  

Lagadwadi road, with an intention to assault his father and that  

he reached the said place in a bicycle and before he could reach  

the place of occurrence, he noticed all the accused beating his  

father with cycle chain and stone, while simultaneously abusing  

him.  He stated that he was able to notice the same, while he was  

about 200 meters away from the actual place of occurrence and  

that the appellants and the other accused turned towards him  

and started assaulting him also with cycle chain and stone and  

that only at the intervention of Raju, he could escape from the  

assault of the accused and reach his father, but found him having  

suffered serious bleeding injury on his head, as well as beating  

marks all  over his body and was asking for water.  Thereafter,  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           15 of 22

Page 16

according to him, he went back to his village in the bicycle and  

got a jeep belonging to Rajendra Ujagare, in whose vehicle he  

took  his  father  to  the  rural  hospital,  where  the  doctor  after  

examining his father, declared him dead.

24. It  is  relevant  to  note  that  the  said  statement  of  the  

complainant,  P.W.4,  contained  relevant  factors,  which  were  

necessary for the registration of the F.I.R. against the accused.

25. With  this  when  we  examine  his  oral  evidence  before  the  

Court,  it  was  pointed  out  that  while  in  the  complaint  he  had  

named  six  persons  as  the  assaulting  party  of  his  father  and  

himself, per contra, in the oral evidence, he had only referred to  

four of them.  In his oral evidence, before the Court, P.W.4 fully  

supported  his  version,  barring  the  presence  of  two  of  the  

accused,  namely,  Ganesh and Sandeep.  P.W.4 fairly  admitted  

that they were not present at the time of the incident and to that  

extent, his statement in the complaint was incorrect.   

26. Though, on behalf of the appellants by making reference to  

certain  insignificant  statements  contained  in  the  evidence  of  

P.W.4, vis-à-vis the complaint, it was sought to be contended that  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           16 of 22

Page 17

the whole  of  the evidence of  P.W.4 should be eschewed from  

consideration, we find there is absolutely no substance in the said  

submission.  On a detailed reading of the complaint, as well as  

the evidence of P.W.4, we find that every one of the statements  

other  than  the  reference  to  Ganesh  and  Sandeep,  were  fully  

supported by P.W.4 without any deviation.  Even his statement  

before the Court about Ganesh and Sandeep, should be accepted  

as a very fair submission, as he did not want to unnecessarily  

rope in persons who were not involved in the crime.   On that  

score, it cannot be held that the whole of the evidence of P.W.4  

has to be rejected.  Since the evidence of P.W.4 in every other  

respect fully supports his version in the complaint and which was  

also to a very great extent supported by the medical evidence  

and  version  of  other  eyewitness  P.W.5,  there  is  no  reason  to  

disbelieve  his  version  in  order  to  reject  the  case  of  the  

prosecution.   

27. In this respect, when we look into the judgment of the Trial  

Court, we find that the Trial Court has analyzed every one of the  

submissions relating to the evidence of P.W.4 in detail and has  

found  no  substance  in  the  contention  made  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants.  Therefore, based on the said submissions, regarding  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           17 of 22

Page 18

the evidence of P.W.4, we do not find any scope to interfere with  

the judgment impugned in these appeals.

28. The other submissions related to the evidence of P.W.3, the  

panch witness, who supported the recovery of cycle chain etc.,  

covered by Exs.22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, were too trivial in nature,  

as we find that the submission was on the footing that he was a  

stock  witness.   The  Trial  Court  has  also  rejected  the  said  

submission by pointing out that merely because the said witness  

had tendered evidence in another case, it cannot be held that on  

that score alone his evidence should be rejected.  The Trial Court  

has found that when his  version, as regards the recovery was  

truthfully and fully corroborated, was acceptable and there was  

no  reason  to  reject  the  version  of  the  said  witness.   Having  

perused the detailed reasoning adduced by the Trial Court and  

accepted by the High Court, we do not find any good ground to  

interfere with the ultimate conclusion on that ground.

29. The other submission made on behalf of the appellants was  

with reference to the human blood found in the clothes worn by  

A1  and  A4.  It  was  contended  that  the  prosecution  failed  to  

satisfactorily establish through any independent evidence about  

the  bloodstains  found  in  the  clothes  of  A1,  as  well  as  the  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           18 of 22

Page 19

appellant in Crl.A.No.1010 of  2008.   In  that respect  instead of  

reiterating  the  details,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  

conclusion reached by the Trial Court, while dealing with the said  

contention, which are found in paragraph 63.  The relevant part  

of it reads as under:

“63. In the present case, the evidence of API Padwal in   this respect is not seriously challenged or shattered.   After all the accused are arrested under Panchanama  and  at  the  time  of  arrest  panchanama  of  accused   Nana blood stained clothes were seized.  It is not in   any way contended or for that matter even whispered   that I.O.API Padwal was having any rancor against the   accused  or  he  was  motivated  or  interested  in  one  sided investigation with the sole object of implicating  the accused.  As a matter of fact, the investigation in   this case appears to be totally impartial.  When it was   transpired  that  two accused  by  name Sandeep  and   Ganesh, the juvenile delinquent have not taken part in   the  assault,  their  names  were  deleted  from  the  prosecution  case  by  filing  report  U/s  169  of  Cr.P.C.   Therefore,  here  the  investigation  as  proceeded  impartially and it is also not even for the sake of it, is   suggested to API Padwal that, no such blood stained   clothes  were  recovered  from  the  accused  Nana,   moreover, as per the settled position of law, there is   no  presumption  in  law  that  a  Police  Officer  acts  dishonestly and his evidence cannot be acted upon.   Therefore,  here  the  evidence  of  API  Padwal  is   sufficient to prove the recovery of the blood stained  clothes  of  the  accused.   His  evidence  also  goes  to  prove  that,  all  these  articles  blood  stained  clothes   etc.,  were  sent  to  C.A.  and  as  per  the  C.A.  report   Exh.61 the blood was detected on the clothes of the   accused  and  deceased  and  this  blood  was  human  blood…………….In the present case, though the C.A.   report, Exh.61 shows that, the said human blood was   of  group  “B”,  C.A.  report  Exh.62  about  the  blood   sample of  the accused states that,  the blood group   

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           19 of 22

Page 20

could  not  be  ascertained  as  the  results  were   inconclusive, moreover, there is no C.A. of the blood   sample of the deceased to prove that, he was having   blood group “B”.  However, the fact remains that, the   stains of human blood were found on the clothes of   accused  Nana  and  he  has  not  explained  how  this   blood  stains  were  on  his  clothes  and  therefore,  as   observed in this authority, it becomes one more highly  incriminating circumstance against the accused.”

30. In  fact,  as rightly noted by the Trial  Court,  it  was for  the  

appellants to have explained as to how the clothes worn by them  

contained  human  blood.  In  Section  313  questioning,  no  

explanation  was  forthcoming  from  the  appellants.   In  these  

circumstances,  the  said  contention  also  does  not  merit  any  

consideration.

31. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon  

Vadivelu Thevar (supra), to support the contention that since  

the  conviction  was  based  on  the  solitary  evidence  of  P.W.4,  

without proper corroboration, the same cannot be sustained.  As  

we have found that it was not based on the solitary statement of  

P.W.4 alone,  but  was also supported by other eyewitness viz.,  

P.W.5,  whose  evidence  merited  acceptance  on  par  with  the  

evidence  of  P.W.4,  apart  from  the  medical  evidence  fully  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           20 of 22

Page 21

supporting  the  case  of  the  prosecution,  the  said  decision  can  

have no application to the facts of this case.

32. As  far  as  the  reliance  placed  on  the  decision  in  Abdul  

Sayeed (supra), we find that the said decision does not support  

the  case  of  the  appellants,  since  in  the  case  on  hand,  the  

evidence of P.W.4, read along with the version of P.W.5 and the  

other medical evidence, as well as the expert opinion, discloses  

the involvement of the appellants in the crime, apart from their  

common intention to eliminate the deceased, as well as P.W.4.  

P.W.4  fortunately  escaped  though  he  also  suffered  multiple  

injuries,  which  ultimately  happened to  be not  serious.  In  such  

circumstances,  we  do  not  find  any  substance  in  the  said  

submission to hold that Section 34 was not attracted to the case  

on hand.  Therefore, the reliance placed upon the said decision  

also does not help the appellants.

33. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the State, the  

medical  evidence  substantially  establishes  the intention  of  the  

accused to eliminate the deceased and the injuries sustained by  

the  deceased discloses  the coordinated vengeance  with  which  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           21 of 22

Page 22

the assault was caused by the appellants, in order to ensure that  

the deceased did not survive.

34. Having regard to our above conclusion, we do not find any  

merit  in  these appeals.   These appeals  fail  and the same are  

dismissed.

………….……….…………………………..J.                          [Chandramauli Kr. Prasad]

   ...……….…….………………………………J.

               [Fakkir  Mohamed Ibrahim  Kalifulla]

New Delhi;  July 03, 2013.

Criminal Appeal Nos.1010 & 1011 of 2008                                                           22 of 22