Oral Judgment:

Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.

1. Both these Appeals arising out of the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No.82/2016 dated 24.10.2018 by which the accused No.1/Gajanan Haridas Gawrane is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.

2. The accused No.1/Gajanan Haridas Gawrane, accused No.2/Sanjay Haridas Gawrane and accused No.3/Mahesh Haridas Gawrane are convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC for attempting to murder Subhash Gawrane and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.

3. They are also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC for attempting to murder Ashok Gawrane and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.

4. Criminal Appeal No.793/2019 is preferred by accused No.1/Gajanan Haridas Gawrane, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 719/2018 is preferred by accused No.2/Sanjay Haridas Gawrane and accused No. 3/Mahesh Haridas Gawrane.

5. Brief facts of the prosecution case emerges from the Police papers and recorded evidence are as under:

                   5(i). The Informant Sunita Ashok Gawrane has lodged report alleging that deceased Durga @ Panchfula was her mother, whereas injured Ashok Gawrane is her father and another injured Subhash Gawrane is her brother. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 are cousin brothers and are residing adjacent to her house.

                   5(ii). On 27.06.2016 in the morning there was a quarrel between accused No.3/Mahesh and injured Subhash, as accused No.3/Mahesh suspected that injured Subhash has stolen his wallet having Rs.350/- and ATM Card. On that count, there was a quarrel between them. Around 04.00 p.m., all accused came besides the house of Informant and again started to quarrel with injured Subhash by suspecting theft by him and accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Sanjay and Mahesh started beating injured Subhash. Injured Ashok intervened in it, therefore he was also assaulted. At the relevant time, the accused No.1/Gajanan came there and there was altercation of words and accused No.1/Gajanan again went to his house, brought knife and gave two blows of that knife on the abdomen of injured Ashok and blow of knife on the abdomen of injured Subhash. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 started beating both the injured by kicks and fist blows and by brick. To save the injured deceased Durga @ Panchfula came out of the house with chilly powder and thrown the said powder on the person of the said accused and ran towards the road. The accused No.1/Gajanan chased her and gave a blow of knife on her neck, therefore she fell down and died on the spot.

                   5(iii). The Police persons immediately came on the spot and moved the injured persons to the Hospital. The daughter of injured Ashok and deceased Durga @ Panchfula namely Sunita lodged the report about the incident. On the basis of the said report, the crime was registered against the accused persons under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act.

                   5(iv). After registration of crime the wheels of investigation started rotating. The Investigating Officer visited the spot of incident, drawn the spot panchnama, seized the clothes of the injured, deceased and accused persons, seized the blood samples of deceased, injured and accused persons and drawn the inquest panchnama and referred the dead body for post mortem examination. The accused persons were arrested. On the basis of the memorandum statement of accused No.1/Gajanan, the incriminating articles blood stained knife and his shirt was recovered by drawing the panchnama. All the articles collected during the spot panchnama were seized through various seizure memos and recovered articles at the instance of accused No.1/Gajanan were forwarded to CA. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted.

                   5(v). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal framed the Charge vide Exh. 17 against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

                   5(vi). In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses, as follows:

                   (i) PW-1 Sunita Gawrane Ashok Exh.30 Informant

                   (ii) PW-2 Subhash Gawrane Ashok Exh.35 Injured eyewitness

                   (iii) PW-3 Rameshwar Pandurang Kolhare Exh.44 Villager.

                   (iv) PW-4 Ashok Gawrane Shamrao Exh.50 Injured eyewitness

                   (v) PW-5 Satish Chaudhary Ashok Exh.55 Panch on spot, inquest panchnama and various seizure memos.

                   (vi) PW-6 Ravi Ajabrao Kulsange Exh.72 Panch memorandum statement recovery panchnama. on and

                   (vii) PW-7 Dr. Ashish Uke Diliprao Exh.83 Medical Officer

                   (viii) PW-8 Dr. Kapildev Sahdev Patil Exh.89 Medical Officer

                   (ix) PW-9 Dr. Ratnadip Shantaram Sonone Exh.96 Medical Officer

                   (x) PW-10 Abhay Murlidharrao Ashtikar Exh.117 Investigating Officer

                   5(vii). Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed reliance on Report-Exh. 31, FIR-Exh. 32, Seizure Memo as to the clothes of injured Subhash-Exh. 33, Statement of injured Subhash under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.-Exh.36, Statement of injured Ashok under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.-Exh. 51, Spot panchnama-Exh. 56, Inquest panchnama-Exh. 57, Seizure memos-Exhs. 62 to 67, Letter to Circle Officer-Exh. 69, Seizure memos-Exhs.73 to 75, Memorandum statement of accused No.1/Gajanan-Exhs.76 & 78, Recovery panchnama-Exhs. 77 & 79, Letter by Medical Officer to P.I.-Exhs. 84 and 85, Letter to Medical Officer-Exh. 86, Query Report Exh. 87, Letter to Medical Officer-Exh. 88, PM Notes-Exh. 91, Letter to Head of Department-Exh. 92, Query to Medical Officer-Exh. 93, Discharge Card-Exhs. 97 and 98, Letter to Medical Officer- Exh. 99, Progressive Injury Report-Exhs. 100 and 101, Arrest Memo Exhs. 105 to 107, Station Diary Entry-Exh. 118, Letter to CA-Exhs. 128 to 130, CA Reports-Exh. 132 to 140.

                   5(viii). After appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial Court held that the death of the deceased is homicidal one and caused by the blow of knife by accused No. 1/Gajanan and accused Nos. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok and attempted to commit their murder and thereby held them guilty and sentenced them as aforestated.

                   5(ix). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present Appeals are preferred by the accused persons.

6. Heard Mr. Awchat, learned Counsel for the accused persons, who submitted that the evidence on record shows that, till the date of incident there was no previous enmity between the accused persons and the family of the deceased. PW-1/Sunita Gawrane admitted during cross-examination that, the accused No.1/Gajanan helped her brother in securing the job. During the sudden quarrel between the injured Subhash and accused Nos. 2 and 3, the deceased and injured have sustained the grievous injuries. There was no intention to commit the murder of the deceased.

7. He also submitted that, the defence of the accused persons is of a total denial, however, even accepting the case as it is during sudden fight sudden quarrel, the death of the deceased is caused and the two injured have sustained the injuries. Therefore, the case of the accused No.1/Gajanan covers under the Exception sudden fight sudden quarrel, whereas the allegation against the accused Nos.2 and 3 is only to the extent that they have assaulted the injured by fist and kick blows. There is no evidence on record to show that there was a common intention of all the accused persons and in furtherance of their common intention they have caused the death of the deceased and injuries to the injured. Therefore, at the most offence under Section 323 of IPC would attract against the accused Nos. 2 and 3. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. Per contra, Ms. Haider, learned APP submitted that, the entire case of the prosecution is rested upon the direct evidence of PW-1/Sunita and two injured eyewitnesses PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok. Admittedly, there was no previous enmity, and therefore, there was no reason for the prosecution witnesses to implicate them falsely. The evidence of these injured eyewitnesses is on higher pedestal and which is not shattered during the cross-examination. There is no reason for them to shield the real culprit and falsely implicate the accused persons. As far as the accused No.1/Gajanan is concerned, who went at his house, brought the knife and gave repeated blows on the person of the injured and cut the throat of the deceased, shows his intention to commit murder. The defence taken by the accused as to the sudden fight sudden quarrel is not attracted as there was a preparation and intention on the part of the accused No.1/Gajanan. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 shared common intention with the accused No.1. Therefore, the Appeals are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

9. After hearing both the sides, we have gone through the entire record with the help of learned APP and the defence Counsel.

10. The first and the foremost question arises whetherthe prosecution succeeded in proving that the death of the deceased Durga @ Panchfula is homicidal death. To prove the death of the deceased is homicidal one, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW-8/Dr.Kapildev Patil examined vide Exh. 89. As per his evidence he was attached to the forensic medicine department in Government Hospital Yavatmal. On 28.06.2016, the dead body of Durga @ Panchfula was referred to him for conducting post mortem examination alongwith the requisition Letter Exh. 90. He alongwith Dr. Sharad Kuchewar and Dr. Kranti Raut conducted the post mortem examination. On seeing the dead body they noted the clothes of the deceased were wet and stained with blood. They packed the clothes separately and handed over to NPC B.No. 1853 who was on duty. On examination of the dead body, they found post mortem lividity was fixed on body. Neck and upper part of chest was having blood stains. On examination they found following injuries on the person of the deceased:

                   i) There was evidence of stab wound over anterior aspect of neck, which was obliquely placed of size 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x cavity deep. (On approximation 2.3 cm. in length) it’s upper end is 9.8 cm. below chin, lower end is 4.00 cm. above supra sterunal notch. and 15 cm. Medial to left acromian process. Upper angle is acute and lower angle of obtuse. It is directed downwards, inwards and laterally towards left. The Track of said injury is from skin- subcutaneous tissues-muscle- below left clavicle- left pleura- left pleural cavity-substance of upper lobe of left lung.

                   ii) Abrasion over dorsum of left hand, which was obliquely placed of size 1.00 cm. X 0.5 cm., reddish in color.

11. As per his evidence both injuries were ante-mortem and fresh. On internal examination they found left lung was collapsed with evidence of stab injury over upper lobe of left lung of size 1.8 c.m. X 0.2 c.m. X tissue deep, corresponding to injury No.1 mentioned in column No.17. The said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage following stab injury over left lung. Accordingly, they prepared the post mortem notes Exh. 91. They have also collected the samples and handed over to the Police.

12. The cross-examination of this witness shows that, it was suggested that, the knife must have blood stains in case of the injury No.1 but the witness explained that if the knife is recovered after the incident immediately. He further admits that, the injury No. 2 is possible by fall on rough surface. Thus, as far as the injuries sustained by the deceased are concerned, nothing incriminating is brought on record to shatter the evidence of this Medical Officer. Besides the PM Report, the inquest panchnama is proved through the evidence of PW-5/Satish Chaudhary by the prosecution. As per his evidence, on the person of the dead body he has seen the saree and blouse which are seized by the Police. The recitals of the inquest panchnama shows the injury was seen on the neck of the deceased.

13. Thus, the evidence of PW-8/Dr. Kapildev Patil sufficiently shows that, the death of the deceased is due to injury sustained by the her on the vital part of her body i.e. on the neck. The injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has also witnessed the corresponding injury on thoracic cavity as he has witnessed the left pleura torn, left lung was collapsed. No adverse evidence is brought on record that there was any reason for causing such injuries.

14. Now it is well settled that, the evidence of PW-8/Dr. Kapildev Patil is not only an opinion evidence but also his evidence is in the nature of direct evidence as he had an opportunity to see the injuries on the person of the deceased.

15. A medical witness, who performs a postmortem examination, is a witness of fact though he also gives an opinion on certain aspects of the case. This proposition of law has been stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitraand Vs. Sunil Chandra Roy and another, reported in 1960 SCR (3) 1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “the value of a medical witness is not merely a check upon the testimony of eyewitnesses; it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. If a person is shot, at close range, the marks of tatooing found by the medical witness would show that the range was small, quite apart from any other opinion of his. Similarly, fractures of bones, depth and size of the wounds would show the nature of the weapon used. It is wrong to say that it is only opinion evidence; it is often direct evidence of the facts found upon the victim’s person.” Thus, the testimony of medical witness is very important and it can be safely accepted. The evidence adduced by the Medical Officer corroborated by the inquest panchanama shows that the deceased died homicidal death.

16. In the recent judgment also, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 402, dealt with the evidentiary value of the medical evidence and observed that the evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. It has been reiterated by this Court that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged.

17. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the death of the deceased is homicidal one.

18. To prove the charges against the accused persons that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the injured PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok and accused No. 1/Gajanan caused the death of the deceased by assaulting her on the vital part of the body with an intention to commit her murder, the entire prosecution case rested upon the evidence of PW-1/Sunita the Informant and two injured eyewitnesses PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok.

19. PW-1/Sunita is the daughter of deceased Durga @ Panchfula and PW-4/Ashok. As per her evidence, the incident took place on 27.06.2016 at about 04.00 p.m. There was altercation between accused No.3/Mahesh, her brother PW-2/Subhash and father PW-4/Ashok on account of allegation that PW-2/Subhash has committed the theft of wallet of accused No.3/Mahesh. At the relevant time, accused No.1/Gajanan and accused No.2/Sanjay also came there. The accused No.2/Sanjay and accused No.3/Mahesh assaulted her brother and father by fist and kick blows. The accused No.1/Gajanan went to his house, brought the knife and gave a blow of knife on the stomach of her brother as well as her father. At the relevant time, she was at home and witnessed the incident. Due to assault, both the injured were fallen down and were raising shouts, due to which her mother to save both the injured from the accused went towards them by taking chilly powder in her hand and her mother thrown chilly powder on the person of the accused and ran away towards road. The accused No.1/Gajanan followed her mother, caught her and gave blow of knife on her throat, due to which she fallen down and died on the spot. The said incident was witnessed by Ankita Pandurang Gawrane, Nanda Pandurang Gawrane and Pandurang Gawrane.

                   19(i). Her evidence further shows that, the Police came at the spot and moved her brother and father to the Hospital. She also approached to the Lohara Police Station and lodged Report (Exh.31) and FIR (Exh.32). The Police seized the shirt of her brother Subhash of sky blue colour i.e. Article-A vide seizure memo Exh. 33 which is identified by her.

                   19(ii). During her cross-examination, some omissions are brought on record by the defence. Her cross-examination shows that, her brother got the employment in Cotton Spinning Mill with the help of accused No.3/Mahesh. She further admits that, on the day of incident there was function of Housewarming (Wastu Shanti) at the house of Maroti Gawrane and many relatives were present in that function but she denied that she was also present in that function. From the cross-examination the attempt was made to show that she has not stated before the Investigating Officer while recording her report that, the accused No.1/Gajanan went to his home and bring the knife. However, it is not an omission but it was stated by her in a different manner. Therefore, the contention of the defence that it is a material omission, is not sustainable. The another omission brought is that the accused cut the throat of her mother, is also not an omission but she has specifically stated that the blow was given on the neck of her mother.

20. To corroborate the version of PW-1/Sunita, PW-2/Subhash is examined by the prosecution, who is also an injured eyewitness. His evidence corroborates the version of PW-1/Sunita on material particulars that, there was a quarrel between him and accused No.3/Mahesh as accused No.3/Mahesh alleged that he has stolen his wallet and all the accused beat him by fist and kick blows. The accused No.1/Gajanan brought the knife and gave blow on his stomach as well as also assaulted his father on his abdomen. On seeing the incident, his mother came and thrown chilly powder on the person of the accused and ran away and the accused No.1/Gajanan followed her and gave a blow of knife on the neck of her mother, due to which she sustained injury and died on the spot. He as well as his father also sustained the injuries and this incident was witnessed by his sister PW-1/Sunita.

                   20(i). His further evidence shows that, he was admitted in Government Hospital for 8 to 10 days and surgery was performed on him. He also identified the knife Article-B which was shown to him. During his cross-examination, an attempt was made to show that, he has got the employment with the help of accused No.3/Mahesh but he denied the same. It came on record during his cross-examination that, Nanda Gawrane and Pandurang Gawrane are his relatives and their houses are adjacent to his house. However, he denied that there were quarrel between himself and his parents on account of partition of agricultural land. Further attempt was made to show that, the Informant has stated the contents of the FIR to him as well as his father which is admitted by him. He further admits that, on 29.06.2016 the Police came to the Hospital to enquire with them, at that time his sister was present.

                   20(ii). In further cross-examination attempt was made to show that the accused beat them, his mother came to rescue them with chilly powder and threw it on the person of the accused and thereafter accused No.1/Gajanan went home and brought the knife which is denied by him. He stated that, the contents of the statement that his mother thrown chilly powder and accused No.1/Gajanan went home and brought the knife is correct. Rest of the cross-examination is in the denial form.

21. The evidence of PW-4/Ashok another injured eyewitness is also on a similar line and corroborates the version of PW-1/Sunita and PW-2/Subhash. During his cross-examination he admitted that, the father of the accused is his real brother and he is possessing the joint agricultural land with his real brother. He also stated that, there is no dispute between him and his brother regarding the agricultural land. Thus, the attempt was made to show that there was no previous enmity. During cross-examination it came on record that after throwing chilly powder on the person of the accused by his wife, accused No.1/Gajanan gave blows to them by knife. Thus, as far as the incident is concerned, the evidence of PW-1/Sunita, PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok is consistent that the accused No.1/Gajanan went to the house, brought the knife and gave blow initially on the person of PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok and thereafter on the neck of the deceased. All the three witnesses have identified the weapon of the offence.

22. Though prosecution has examined PW-3/Rameshwar Kolhare but he is not the eyewitness. His evidence is only to the extent that on the day of incident when he was at home accused No.1/Gajanan came to his house washed his face and went away.

23. Besides the oral evidence of these witnesses prosecution placed reliance on the medical evidence. As far as the homicidal death of the deceased Durga @ Panchfula is concerned, which is already discussed.

24. PW-8/Dr. Kapildev Patil also deposed as to the nature of the weapon. His evidence shows that vide requisition dated 29.07.2016 he was asked to opine whether the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible by the knife which was referred to him. He deposed that, he received the weapon in a sealed condition. The weapon was a pointed knife with plastic handle having shape of horse face. The total length of knife was 30.5 c.m., and its blade was of metal, having pointed tip and one edge sharp of 18 c.m., in length and 3 c.m., in width. He observed dried mud and rust stains over the knife. He opined that injury Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in PM report is possible by such type of weapon. Injury No.1 mentioned in column No.17 was having corresponding internal injuries mentioned in column No. 20 of PM report which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has also drawn the sketch of the weapon and forwarded his report vide Exh. 93 signed by him and his colleagues Dr. Kuchewar and Dr. Raut.

25. As far as the cross-examination is concerned, the evidence of Medical Officer on the nature of the weapon and the injuries is not shattered. Only he has admitted that the injury No.2 can be possible by fall on rough surface.

26. PW-7/Dr. Ashish Uke has examined injured Ashok and Subhash. As per his evidence on 27.06.2016 both the injured were admitted to his Hospital. On the same day he received the letter from Police Station Lohara for recording their statements. Therefore, he examined the patients and opined that they are not in a position to give a statement as their conditions are bad. The history given to the Hospital is the assault on 27.06.2016 at 04.30 p.m. His further evidence shows that on 28.07.2016 he received a query from the concerned Police Station by referring the weapon and shirt so also the injury report of injured Ashok Gawrane and Subhash Gawrane. He has also described the knife and stated that the article shirt was of a white colour having blue lines, middle button of the shirt was missing, there were blood stains on the front and mud stains on the back and rest of the shirt. There was tear mark which was clear cut by sharp object on the left side of the shirt on front side below pocket. The length of the tear was 3 c.m. He opined that, the injury mentioned in the injury reports of Ashok and Subhash can be caused by the weapon knife. The cut mark on the shirt can be caused by weapon knife. He has also drawn the sketch of weapon knife and shirt. The query report is at Exh. 87. The letter issued by him to the Police Station Lohara stating physical condition of the injured are at Exhs. 84 and 85. His evidence shows that, Police have also requested him to obtain the blood samples of injured Subhash. Accordingly, he collected the blood samples and handed over to API Abhay Ashtekar.

His cross-examination shows that, the Medical Officer of Surgery Department treated both the injured. He further admits that, he has issued the Letters Exhs. 84 and 85 on the say of Medical Officer of Surgery Department but he denied that, he has not personally examined the injured. He also denied that, the injuries are not possible by the weapon like knife.

27. PW-9/Dr. Ratnadip Sonone is the another Medical Officer. As per his evidence both the injured were referred to him by C.M.O. They both were in a critical condition. They were having history of stab injuries on the abdomen. Injured Ashok Gawrane received a stab wound over left hypocondrium region of size 5 x 4 c.m. by deep up to peritoneal cavity. He was having tenderness over left side of abdomen. Injured Subhash Gawrane was having stab wound over left side of epigastric region of size 4 x 3 c.m. by deep up to peritoneal cavity. The edges of injuries were sharp with upper angle blunt and lower angle acute. He has performed the emergency exploratory laparotomy. His evidence further shows that, on opening of cavity of patient Ashok he observed 750 ml., collection of blood in paritonium. There was lacerated wound over left lobe of liver of size 3 x 1 c.m. The bleeding was controlled by fibrilar patch. He has also narrated as to the procedure performed by him was to stop the blood.

                   27(i). His evidence further shows that, he has also performed the surgery on injured Subhash who has also sustained the injury lacerated wound over the liver. There was perforation of stomach which was repaired. Liver bleeding was controlled by fibrilar patch. Transverse colostomy was done. The patients were admitted from 27.06.2016 to 06.07.2016. The discharge cards are at Exhs. 97 and 98. The progressive injury reports are at Exhs. 100 and 101.

                   27(ii). The evidence further shows that, the injuries sustained by both the injured was caused by long, sharp, hard weapon and grievous in nature. Those injuries can lead to death of both the patients. He further deposed that, the injuries are possible by knife Article-B. The clothes worn by the patients must be cut. The cut marks appeared on Article-A shirt can be caused due to weapon Article-B. Said cut marks are consistent with injuries to injured Subhash. The cross-examination further confirms that, there were many cut marks on the shirt. It further shows that, both patients sustained the injuries on the left side of epigastric region and they have sustained single external injury.

28. Thus, the oral evidence of PW-1/Sunita, PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok is corroborated by the Medical evidence also. The cross-examination nowhere shatters either the oral evidence of these witnesses or the medical evidence.

29. Besides the direct evidence and medical evidence, prosecution has also placed reliance on the circumstantial evidence like spot panchnama and memorandum statement of accused No.1/Gajanan and recovery of weapon and blood stained shirt at his instance.

30. PW-5/Satish Chaudhary is examined to prove the spot panchnama. His evidence shows that, he was called by the Police to act as a Panch. One lady has shown the spot of incident. He was accompanied by another panch. Said spot of incident was in front of the house of Informant. Chilly powder was lying on the ground and also the blood stains. The water in the tank near the bathroom was of reddish colour. In the bathroom there was a container of chilly powder. In front of the house of Suresh Raut one lady was lying in a dead condition and her neck was cut. Police collected the simple earth, blood mixed earth, chilly powder mixed earth and water from the tank in the bottle and accordingly panchnama Exh.56 was drawn. He identified the articles simple earth, blood mixed earth, chilly powder mixed earth and water from the tank in bottle as Articles-C, D, E and F. His evidence further shows that, on the person of the dead lady there was pink colour saree and pink colour blouse which are at Articles-G and H. Police have also seized one shirt of sky colour which is at Article-A.

Though he was cross-examined at length nothing incriminating is brought on record, much stress was given by the defence Counsel on the admission that his signatures were obtained on the labels of the seized articles in the Police Station. He also admitted that, on the day of incident he has not seen any shirt at the spot of incident. It is pertinent to note that, the shirt was not seized from the spot but it was produced by PW-1/Sunita in presence of panchas. Therefore, the said admission is not of much relevance.

31. PW-6/Ravi Kulsange is the another panch on memorandum statement of the accused No.1/Gajanan and recovery at his instance. His evidence shows that, on 29.06.2016 in his presence in the Police Station, accused No.1/Gajanan Gawrane made a statement that he is ready to produce the knife which was hidden by him. Accordingly, the said statement was recorded at Exh. 76 and thereafter he led them near Railway gate of Lohara by Government Jeep. Jeep was stopped near the Neem Tree. Towards southern side at slope from the bushes of Palas tree, the accused took out a knife and handed over it. The said knife was having face of horse. Police seized the knife by drawing the panchnama vide Exh. 78. His evidence further shows that, the accused further led them near the Thakare Kirana Shop in Lohara area. Accused went to the house of Rameshwar Kolhare and took out a blue colour shirt which was kept under the tin of roof which was produced by him. Accordingly, panchnama Exh. 79 was drawn.

His evidence further shows that, accused No.3/Mahesh Gawrane has produced his clothes i.e. blue colour jeans pant and black colour T-shirt stained with blood which was seized vide seizure memo Exh. 74. The same are marked as Articles-K & L. Accused No.2/Sanjay Gawrane also produced his brownish colour pant and blue colour checks shirt stained with blood were seized vide seizure memo Exh. 75. The said clothes are marked as Articles-M & N. Accused No.1/Gajanan Gawrane also produced the clothes i.e. blue colour shirt and black colour night pant stained with blood which is at Exh. 73 and marked as Articles-I & J.

32. This PW-6/Ravi cross-examined but the evidence of this witness that the accused made a memorandum statement is not shattered during the cross-examination. There is absolutely no cross as to voluntariness of the statement or on the place of recovery. Thus, the evidence as to the memorandum statement and recovery at the instance of the accused No.1/Gajanan remained unchallenged.

33. Exh. 63 is the seizure memo as to the blood samples of injured Ashok and Exh. 62 is the seizure memo as to the blood samples of injured Subhash, Exh. 64 is the seizure memo as to the blood stained clothes of the deceased, Exh. 65 is the seizure memo as to the blood samples of accused No.1/Gajanan, Exh. 66 is the seizure memo as to the blood samples of accused No.2/Sanjay and Exh. 67 is the seizure memo as to the blood samples of accused No.3/Mahesh.

34. PW-10/Abhay Ashtikar is the Investigating Officer who has narrated about the investigation carried out by him. During his cross-examination it is brought on record that, the spot of incident is surrounded by various houses. He also admits that, from the place where the injured were lying was not visible from the place where deceased Durga @ Panchfula was lying. It came in the evidence that, he has not recorded the statement of Ramesh Raut, Rameshwar Salve, Sunil Gawande, Dipak Dongare, Kisana Yadao etc. Thus, the attempt was made to show that, the statements of independent witnesses were not recorded. It further came in his evidence that, he has deposited the seized muddemal with muddemal clerk on 22.07.2016.

35. Another scientific evidence on which the prosecution relied upon is the C.A. Report Exh. 132 which shows that, Article-A full shirt of injured Subhash, saree of deceased and blouse of deceased are stained with blood group ‘A’. Blood is detected on soil, earth mixed with reddish powder, full shirt of accused No.1/Gajanan, petticoat of deceased and blouse of the deceased. Blood group of blood detected on earth collected from spot, earth mixed with reddish powder, full shirt of accused No.1/Gajanan and petticoat of the deceased was not determined. As per Exh. 133, blood group of injured Subhash is ‘A’, blood Group of Ashok is ‘O’, blood group of accused No.1/Gajanan is ‘A’, blood group of accused Mahesh and Sanjay is ‘A’ and blood group of deceased is also ‘A’. Exh.140 is the analysis report which shows that, chilly powder is detected on Exh.4 earth mixed with reddish powder, Exh. 5 reddish liquid in a plastic bottle, Exh. 7 full shirt, Exh. 11 full pant and Exh. 12 full shirt.

36. Thus, after going through the evidence it is apparent that, the entire prosecution case is rested upon the direct evidence of PW-1/Sunita, PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok coupled with circumstantial evidence, recovery of weapon knife and blood stained shirt of the accused No.1/Gajanan, medical evidence and scientific evidence as well as the spot panchnama.

37. The law is settled that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy. The material thing which is to be seen whether those inconsistencies goes to the root of the matter. While appreciating the evidence of relatives, great weightage is to be given to them on the principle that there is no reason for them not to speak the truth and shield the real culprit.

38. The learned Counsel for the accused persons submitted that, no independent witnesses have been examined, and therefore, the prosecution case is doubtful. Admittedly, the alleged incident has taken place in front of the house of Informant. The cross-examination of the witnesses shows that, the house of the accused is at some distance from the house of the Informant. There was a dispute between the injured Subhash and accused Mahesh and Sanjay as accused Mahesh suspected that injured Subhash has committed theft of his wallet and on that count, there was altercation. During that altercation both the injured were assaulted. Initially the accused No.1/Gajanan came there and assaulted both the injured and again went to his house, brought the knife and gave the blows of knife on the person of PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok. As the deceased made an attempt by throwing the chilly powder on them to save the injured, therefore the accused No.1/Gajanan ran behind her and gave a blow of knife on her neck. The entire incident was witnessed by PW-1/Sunita who is the daughter of the deceased and PW-4/Ashok. Her presence at the spot was natural one. Though some omissions were brought on record which are minor in nature and was not affecting the core of the prosecution case. It is vehemently submitted that, only interested witnesses are examined. It is now well settled that, normally close relatives of the deceased would not be considered to be the interested witnesses who would also mention the names of other persons as responsible for causing injuries to the deceased.

39. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 82, has held that the evidence of interested witnesses is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even, partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting the evidence of relatives. It cannot be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. On the contrary, a close relative who is very natural witness cannot be regarded as interested witness. The term “interested” postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason.

40. Testing on the anvil and touchstone on the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we find that the witnesses i.e. the daughter of the deceased PW-1/Sunita, injured PW-2/Subhash and injured PW-4/Ashok who are the closed relatives of the deceased have really not embellished their versions. Their presence at the spot of the incident is also natural as the alleged incident has taken place in front of their house and there is nothing on record to doubt their versions on material particulars. Even if the admission given by PW-10/Abhay Ashtikar Investigating Officer is taken into consideration that the place where the injured were lying from which the place where deceased was fallen was not visible but their evidence shows that they have witnessed the accused No.1/Gajanan running behind the deceased. PW-1/Sunita has witnessed the entire incident and there is no reason to doubt her version. Moreover, the evidence of injured eyewitnesses is on the higher pedestal and there is nothing on record to doubt their versions. Their evidence is not only corroborated by the medical evidence but also by circumstantial evidence that the blood stains are found on the spot in front of their house, chilly powder was also found in front of the house as well as on the clothes of the accused and blood stains are also found on the clothes of accused No.1/Gajanan.

41. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.56/2018 decided on 19.09.2018 (Shamin Ansari & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), observed that while appreciating the evidence of witnesses, approach must be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole inspires confidence. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence, more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawback, and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against a general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.

42. Thus, after appreciating the evidence even considering the inconsistencies on record which are not touching the core of the incident, and therefore, the evidence of these witnesses requires to be accepted.

43. It is well settled that, the witnesses related to the deceased would not shield the real culprit and implicate any innocent.

44. On perusal of the entire evidence, as far as the homicidal death of deceased Durga @ Panchfula is concerned at the hands of the accused, is proved by the prosecution through the evidence of PW-1/Sunita, injured PW-2/Subhash and injured PW-4/Ashok. It is further corroborated by the circumstantial evidence that, the recovery of weapon at the hands of accused No.1/Gajanan, which is proved by the prosecution through the evidence of PW-6/Ravi Kulsange and PW-10/Abhay Ashtikar Investigating Officer. The evidence of these witnesses shows that the accused No.1/Gajanan has made a voluntary statement and in perusal of the said statement the articles were recovered. Though the witnesses are cross-examined but the evidence as to the voluntariness of the statements and recovery part is not shattered. Thus, the recovery at the instance of the accused No.1/Gajanan is proved by the prosecution.

45. The doctrine underlined under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true.

46. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanya Vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 887, and held that the conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly discussed as under:

                   “(i) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused;

                   (ii) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to;

                   (iii) The accused must be in police custody when he gave information; and

                   (iv) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible.”

It has been further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that what is admissible is the information and the same has to be proved and the opinion form it by the police officer. It has been further held that in other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. It is further held by the statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given.

47. The evidence of panch witness PW-6/Ravi Kulsange that the knife was recovered on the basis of the statement of accused No.1/Gajanan is further substantiated by the medical evidence as PW-7/Dr. Ashish Uke, PW-8/Dr. Kapildev Patil and PW-9/Dr. Ratnadip Sonone categorically stated about the description of the weapon and also stated that the injuries on the person of the deceased and injured Subhash and Ashok are possible by weapon article knife. The blood stained shirt of accused No.1/Gajanan was also recovered at his instance and for which no explanation was put forth by the accused. It is not the case that, the accused have also sustained the injuries, and therefore, blood stains are appearing on their person. Therefore, the explanation as to the blood stains was required from the accused which he has not explained in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. also. Thus, the incriminating circumstance brought on record by the prosecution connecting the accused that the blood stains are found only on his clothes, is an additional circumstance in favour of the prosecution. Merely, because the blood group is not detected, is not sufficient to discard the evidence.

48. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishore Bhadke Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2017 ALLMR (CRI) 1316, wherein it is held that the presence of human blood on clothes recovered at the instance of the accused – mere absence of evidence regarding the blood group cannot be fatal to the prosecution.

49. Though the learned Counsel for the accused persons submitted that during sudden fight sudden quarrel accused No.1/Gajanan gave a blow of knife on the person of injured PW-2/Subhash and injured PW-4/Ashok and thereafter on deceased, however the evidence on record shows that during quarrel he went home, brought the knife and gave blow. It is not came in the evidence that, the knife was lying there which was picked up by the accused. The intention of the accused No.1/Gajanan can be gathered from circumstances. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the accused persons that the case is covered under Exception 4 sudden fight and sudden quarrel, is not sustainable.

50. The culpable homicide is defined in Section 299 of IPC and it is genus. Whereas, the murder defined in Section 300 of IPC and it is specie. Under Section 299 of IPC, whoever causes death with an intention or knowledge specified in that Section, commits offence of culpable homicide. However, since culpable homicide is only genus, it includes two forms; one is a graver offence which amounts to ‘murder’ and lesser one which does not amount to ‘murder’. It can be seen that, therefore, though the offence of culpable homicide is defined, the said provision does not provide any punishment for that offence as such and, for the purpose of punishment, the court has to examine facts and find out whether the offence falls or does not fall under the definition of murder under Section 300 of IPC. In view of this scheme, therefore, every act of homicide falls within the definition of culpable homicide under Section 299 of IPC. Section 300 of IPC on the one hand mentions that a homicide is murder. However, in that section five exceptions have been given and these exceptions lay down the circumstances in which the act causing death is not murder even though it may have been done with the intention or knowledge specified in Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it has to be seen; (1) what was the intention or knowledge with which the act was done and what are circumstances in which it was done, (2) if it is established that the offence is culpable homicide, but it does not fall within the definition of murder and if it falls under any of exceptions to that Section, the offence is punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Once, it is held that the offence falls under Section 304 of IPC, the punishment differs, depending upon whether the death is caused with an intention or only with the knowledge and, therefore, if the element of intention exists, the offence is punishable under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC, otherwise, the offence falls under Part-II of Section 304 of IPC.

51. In the case of Anbazhagan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 857 also, while considering the aspect of “intention” and “knowledge”, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the word "intent" is derived from the word archery or aim. The “act” attempted to must be with “intention” of killing a man. Intention, which is a state of mind, can never be precisely proved by direct evidence as a fact; it can only be deduced or inferred from other facts which are proved. The intention may be proved by res gestae, by acts or events previous or subsequent to the incident or occurrence, on admission. Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case. There are various relevant circumstances from which the intention can be gathered. Some relevant considerations are that 1. the nature of the weapon used; 2. the place where the injuries were inflicted; 3. the nature of the injuries caused, and 4. the opportunity available which the accused gets.

52. By referring its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Mathri Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 986, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the word “intent” by its etymology, seems to have metaphorical allusion to archery, and implies “aim” and thus connotes not a casual or merely possible result- foreseen perhaps as a not improbable incident, but not desired- but rather connotes the one object for which the effort is made- and thus has reference to what has been called the dominant motive, without which, the action would not have been taken. While distinguishing between “motive”, “intention” and “knowledge”, “motive” is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they connote different things. Even in some English decisions, the three ideas are used interchangeably and this had led to a certain amount of confusion. A man’s intention has to be inferred from what he does. The degree of guilt depends upon intention and the intention to be inferred must be gathered from the facts proved. Sometimes an act is committed which would not in an ordinary case inflict injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Proof of such knowledge throws light upon his intention. On the other hand, awareness is termed as “knowledge”. The knowledge of the consequences which may result in the doing of an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. Except in cases where mens rea is not required in order to prove that a person had certain knowledge, he must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow, the knowledge that specified consequences would result or could result by doing an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. If an act is done by a man with the knowledge that certain consequences may follow or will follow, it does not necessarily mean that he intended such consequences and acted with such intention. Intention requires something more than a mere foresight of the consequences. It requires a purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.

53. With the above proposition, if the evidence in the present case is taken into consideration and attending circumstances sufficiently shows accused No.1/Gajanan is guilty for culpable homicide amounting to murder.

54. Thus, the entire evidence on record as far as the involvement of the accused No.1/Gajanan in committing the murder of deceased Durga @ Panchfula is concerned, is sufficient to prove the charges. Therefore, the reasoning of the Trial Court holding him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC calls no interference.

55. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 are further held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The evidence of injured witness PW-2/Subhash, injured witness PW-4/Ashok and Informant PW-1/Sunita consistently states that it was the accused No.1/Gajanan brought the knife from his house and gave blow on the person of the injured on the vital part of the body. The evidence further shows that, the alleged incident has taken place on account of the dispute as accused No.3/Mahesh suspected that injured PW-2/Subhash has committed theft. The evidence further shows that, accused accused No. 2/Sanjay and accused No.3/Mahesh assaulted both the injured by fist and kick blows. No overt act is attributed to them. There is no evidence that in furtherance of their common intention all the accused persons arrived at the spot. The evidence on record shows that initially accused No.2/Sanjay and accused No.3/Mahesh had altercation with both the injured and accused No.1/Gajanan came there subsequently, therefore the evidence on record is not sufficient to show that they were sharing a common intention. The evidence of these witnesses nowhere shows that, they came on the spot together alongwith weapons in their hands. The evidence shows that during the altercation accused Nos. 2 and 3 started assaulting both the injured by fist and kick blows and accused No.1/Gajanan also joined them and assaulted them initially by fist and kick blows and subsequently went to the house and brought the knife. Therefore, the evidence nowhere discloses that the act of assaulting both the injured by means of knife by accused No.1/Gajanan was in furtherance of common intention with other two accused.

56. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 545, interpreted the word “furtherance” and held that, the word “furtherance” indicates the existence aid or assistance in producing an effect in future and thus it has to be construed as an advancement or promotion. It is further held that, the existence of common intention is obviously the duty of the prosecution to prove. However, the court has to analyze and assess the evidence before implicating a person under Section 34 of IPC.

57. Thus, Section 34 of IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by one, into others, in pursuance to the common intention. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the common intention to the satisfaction of the Court. The evidence should be substantial, concrete, definite and clear.

58. By applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the common intention of accused Nos. 2 and 3 is not established by the prosecution. At the most, the act committed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned would attract under Section 323 of IPC.

59. The involvement of the accused No.1/Gajanan in assaulting PW-2/Subhash and PW-4/Ashok is established by the prosecution not only by the direct evidence but also through the medical evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence. The evidence of PW-2/Subhash and PW/4/Ashok categorically stated that, the accused No.1/Gajanan went at home brought the knife and gave a blow of knife on their stomach. The Informant PW-1/Sunita also corroborated the same. Though these witnesses are cross-examined at length, as far as their evidence on assault is concerned, remained unshattered. It is further corroborated by the medical evidence as PW-7/Dr. Ashish Uke deposed that the injury mentioned in the medical certificate can be caused by the weapon knife. He has also described the description of knife which was referred to him for obtaining his opinion. The evidence of PW-9/Dr. Ratnadip Sonone is on the aspect of nature of injury specifically shows that, injured Ashok has sustained the stab wound over left hypocondrium region of size 5 x 4 c.m. by deep up to peritoneal cavity and he has performed the surgery on him. Similarly, the injured Subhash also sustained the stab wound over the left side of epigastric region of size 4 x 3 c.m., and surgery was performed on him also. He Specifically submitted that, the injuries sustained by the injured are caused by long, sharp and hard weapon and grievous in nature and those injuries can lead death of both the parties.

60. By witnessing the weapon he deposed that the said injuries are possible by weapon like Article-B. The evidence of both these witnesses shows that, they have also examined the shirt of injured Subhash, wherein there were tear marks and stated that, the said tear marks are possible by Article-B. The weapon knife was seized at the instance of accused No.1/Gajanan. The said recovery of weapon is proved by PW-6/Ravi Kulsange panch and PW-10/Abhay Ashtikar Investigating Officer. Though these two witnesses are cross-examined, nothing much significance could be gathered from their cross-examination. It is well settled that, the version of an injured witness stands on better footing than on ordinary witness. Ordinarily, an injured witness is unlikely to allow the real assailant to go scotfree. There is no rule of law that the evidence of complainant or injured must be corroborated by other independent witnesses. It is well settled that the conviction can be based upon even on sole testimony of injured and injured cannot be said to be interested witness who requires corroboration.

61. By applying all these tests the offence under Section 307 of IPC is also established against the accused No.1/Gajanan. As already observed that, the offence under Section 302 of IPC is established against him. As far as the intention to cause death is concerned, it can be gathered from various circumstances like nature of the weapon used by him and the blow aimed at the vital part of the body and the amount of force employed in causing the injury. Here in the present case, the deceased has sustained the injury on her throat and she died instantaneously. The injured also sustained the injuries on the vital part of the body, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the prosecution is succeeded in establishing the charge under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC against the accused No.1/Gajanan. As far as accused No.2/Sanjay and accused No.3/Mahesh are concerned, only allegation against them is that they assaulted the injured by means of fist and kick blows. There is no evidence that, all the accused by sharing the common intention came at the spot. Therefore, the accused No.2/Sanjay and accused No.3/Mahesh cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The observation of the Trial Court that they were sharing common intention, is without any evidence, and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. As far as the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court holding the accused No.1/Gajanan guilty, is proper and no interference is called for.

62. In view of the above discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 793/2019 deserves to be dismissed, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 719/2018 deserves to be allowed partly. In view of that, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i. Criminal Appeal No. 793/2019 is dismissed.

ii. Criminal Appeal No. 719/2018 is partly allowed.

iii. The judgment and order of sentence convicting No.2/Sanjay S/o Haridas Gawrane and accused No.3/Mahesh S/o Haridas Gawrane of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to further suffer R.I. for 6 months, is hereby quashed and set aside.

iv. They both are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for 01 month.

v. The accused No.2/Sanjay S/o Haridas Gawrane and accused No.3/Mahesh S/o Haridas Gawrane both have already undergone 10 months and 37 days and they are entitled for the set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C and for remaining sentence they shall surrender before the Superintendent District Prison, Yavatmal on 10.12.2025.

The Superintendent District Prison, Yavatmal shall communicate to this Court if they fails to surrender.

vi. R & P be sent to the Trial Court.

63. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.