Variance in the depositions of the witness, i.e. between the vernacular and the English translation

In respect of any variance
in the depositions of the witness, i.e. between the
vernacular and the English translation, the vernacular
version would prevail. A reference in this behalf may
usefully be made to the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in The State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao s/o
Doma Udan and others (1996 Cri.L.J. 673)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.135 OF 2005
Devanand s/o Shalikram Wankhede,


- Versus -
The State of Maharashtra, through



The appellant, who stands convicted for an
offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to
pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month, by the 1st
Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by judgment
dated 7/1/2005, in Sessions Trial No. 327/2002, by this
appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and
sentence. 
2) Such of the facts as are necessary for the
decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus :
P.W.7 P.S.I. Kewat, who was attached to
Sitabuldi Police Station on night duty on 12/3/2002
from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. of 13/3/2002, received a
message from P.S.I. of Police Station, Imamwada that
the appellant had come to the Police Station and
confessed to his having committed murder of his wife
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2013 11:16:13 :::Bombay High Court
3
Sunita on the North Ambazari road. P.W.7 P.S.I. Kewat
accordingly deputed P.S.I. Chauhan and P.S.I.
Chaudhari to go to the scene of the incident. The
aforesaid Police Officers had removed the injured lady
to the Government Medical College and Hospital,
Nagpur and P.S.I. Chauhan lodged a complaint at the
Police Station. The said complaint is at Exh. 44 and on
the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an offence came
to be registered against the appellant. The printed
copy of the First Information Report is at Exh. 45.
P.W.14 Maroti Shende, P.I., who was at the relevant
time attached to Police Station, Sitabuldi, received the
case diary of Crime No. 144/2002, which has been
registered against the appellant. He proceeded to the
scene of the incident and drew the scene of the
offence panchanama at Exh. 32 in the presence of
panch witnesses. One handkerchief and one knife,
which were lying at the scene of the incident, came to
be seized. Sample of ordinary mud and blood stained
mud also came to be seized. The appellant came to be

formally arrested and clothes on his person, namely,
Article 6 shirt and Article 7 pant came to be seized vide
seizure memo at Exh. 59. The appellant was referred
for medical examination and for drawing the blood
sample. The aforesaid blood sample came to be
seized in the presence of the panch witnesses vide
seizure memo at Exh. 62. Clothes of deceased Sunita
came to be seized vide seizure memo at Exh. 58. The
articles were referred to the Chemical Analyser along
with a requisition at Exh. 65. The arrest panchanama
of the appellant is at Exh. 67. Statements of witnesses
came to be recorded and further to the completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed. 
3) On committal of the case to the Court of
Sessions, the trial Court vide Exh. 7 framed charge
against the appellant for offence punishable under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant
denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution in support of its case, examined 14

witnesses. The defence of the appellant/accused was
of denial. The trial Court accepted the prosecution
evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant
as aforestated.
4) Before we advert to the submissions
advanced before us by Shri S.M. Bhangde, learned
Counsel for the appellant and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State,
it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. The entire case of the
prosecution revolves around the evidence of P.W.2
Tukaram, brother of the deceased, P.W.5 Nidhan, uncle
of the deceased, P.W. 6 Dhyandeo, father of the
deceased, and P.W. 8 Wasudeo, a Watchman at the
factory where deceased Sunita was working.
5) P.W.2 Tukaram, brother of deceased Sunita,
states that deceased Sunita was married to the
appellant about ten years prior to the incident. The

appellant was working in a factory as a Watchman
while deceased Sunita was working in a Cotton Ginning
Factory. Both of them used to reside in the premises
of the factory where the appellant was working.
Deceased Sunita had given birth to two daughters and
one son, who were also residing with the appellant and
deceased Sunita. The relations between the appellant
and deceased were, however, strained as disputes
between them had cropped up. About three days prior
to the incident, deceased Sunita had come to the
house of P.W.2 Tukaram and she narrated to him that
she was apprehending danger to her life at the house
of the appellant and, therefore, did not want to reside
with the appellant. P.W.2 Tukaram, therefore, went to
the house of the appellant along with his sister -
deceased Sunita and brought both of them and their
children to his house. All of them stayed in the house
of P.W.2 Tukaram and thereafter they had informed
him that they intended to reside separately. On the
day of the incident, the appellant left the house of

P.W.2 Tukaram along with deceased Sunita at about
8 a.m. in order to attend their respective duties. P.W.2
Tukaram further states that on the next day at about
2-2.30 a.m., he received information from the Police
that his sister Sunita had been killed. In crossexamination on behalf of the appellant, an admission
has been elicited that the appellant was suspecting the
character of deceased Sunita and that was the cause
of disputes between them. The appellant was
suspecting illicit relations between deceased Sunita
and the Watchman of the factory where deceased
Sunita was employed. Omission has been duly proved
that he had not stated in his previous statement that
deceased Sunita had expressed apprehension about
danger to her life and that she did not want to stay
with the appellant. Apart from this, there is nothing in
the cross-examination, which would in any manner
affect the credibility of this witness that the relations
between the appellant and deceased Sunita were
strained and on the day of incident, deceased Sunita

and appellant had left together at 8 a.m.
6) P.W.3 Bhalchandra, Supervisor in the Cotton
Ginning Factory where deceased Sunita was employed,
states that deceased Sunita was on duty on the day of
the incident and the workers in the factory were
working in two shifts, i.e. from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. and
from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. He states that deceased
Sunita was working in the first shift and was also at
times working in the second shift, if work was
available. Deceased Sunita used to work in both the
shifts on some days.
7) P.W.5 Nidhan, uncle of deceased Sunita,
states about the relations between deceased Sunita
and appellant were strained and, therefore, he had
requested the appellant to settle the dispute. He
further states that he had attempted to call father of
deceased Sunita in order to apprise him about the
dispute between them, but he was unable to do so.

Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated
in his previous statement that he had attempted to call
father of deceased Sunita, but was unable to do so.
8) P.W.6 Dhyandeo, father of deceased Sunita,
also states that about a month prior to the incident,
deceased Sunita had come to his house and had
complained that the appellant was quarrelling with her.
Deceased Sunita had also complained that her motherin-law used to quarrel with her whenever she used to
come to their house. He states that after about a
month, he had received a message from the accused
to come to Nagpur immediately as the accused had
some work with him. In the meantime, he received a
telephone from one Shri Sardar that his daughter had
died and, therefore, he came to Nagpur and learnt that
Sunita had been killed.
9) P.W.7 Kewat, who was attached to Police
Station, Sitabuldi as a P.S.I., states about registration

of the offence and in the cross-examination, has
admitted that he had taken entry in the station diary
about the information received from the Police Station,
Imamwada about the appellant confessing that he had
injured his wife.
10) P.W.8 Wasudeo, who was employed as a
Watchman in the Ginning and Pressing Factory where
deceased Sunita was employed, states that on
12/3/2002, he was on duty from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight
and deceased Sunita was working in the shift from
2 p.m. to 10 p.m. He further states that the appellant
had come to fetch his wife at about 9.45 p.m. and had
taken her at about 10.15 p.m. on a bicycle. He states
that later on he learnt that Sunita had been killed. In
cross-examination, he has admitted that the Ginning
Factory had two gates. In cross-examination he has
further admitted that a person standing outside the
gate is not visible from inside, If he is sitting in his
cabin, which is towards the right side of the gate.

However, in the vernacular deposition of this witness,
it is stated by him that the person standing outside the
gate is visible from inside. In respect of any variance
in the depositions of the witness, i.e. between the
vernacular and the English translation, the vernacular
version would prevail. A reference in this behalf may
usefully be made to the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in The State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao s/o
Doma Udan and others (1996 Cri.L.J. 673). Thus, from
the evidence of P.W. 8 Wasudeo, it clearly emerges
that deceased Sunita had accompanied the appellant
on his bicycle at 10.15 p.m. on the day of incident.
11) The evidence of P.W. 14 Shende, P.I., who is
the Investigating Officer, is relevant. In crossexamination, it has been elicited that he had arrested
the accused in the Police Station, Sitabuldi as the
accused had been brought by P.S.I. Chauhan from
Imamwada Police Station. This is an admission, which
has been elicited in the cross-examination.

12) Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the
appellant, has urged before us that the report lodged
by the appellant has not been tendered in evidence
nor any Police Officer from Imamwada Police Station
was examined to substantiate that the appellant had
appeared at the Police Station for confessing his guilt.
The report alleged to have been lodged by the
appellant, which was in the nature of confession, would
be wholly inadmissible in evidence. Failure of the
prosecution, therefore, to tender that report in the
evidence is of no consequence. In the crossexamination of P.W.14 Shende, P.I., it has been elicited
that the appellant had been brought from Imamwada
Police Station by P.S.I. Chauhan and had been arrested
in the Sitabuldi Police Station. The dead body of
deceased Sunita was found lying on the Ambazari road
having sustained innumerable injuries.
13) The Medical Officer, i.e. P.W. 9 Dr. Mohite,
who had performed the post mortem examination, had

noticed the following external injuries :
“(1) Incised wound over (R) side of face
verticle of size 12 cm x 2½ cm x muscle deep
gaping. 
(2) incised wound across inj. no.(1) as
(R) angle of mandible, oblique of size 5½ cm
x 2½ cm x muscle deep gaping present.
(3) Incised wound over (R) side
mandible verticle 3 cm. from mid-line 2½ cm
x ¼ cm x muscle deep.
(4) Incised wound over (Rt) ear lobe
transverse 2 cm x ¼ cm part of lobe cut
through and through.
(5) Incised wound 5 cm below (R)
mastoid transverse 5 cm x ½ cm x muscle
deep with tailing for ½ cm on left end.
(6) Incised wound over middle 3rd of (Rt.)
eye brow verticle 4 cm x ½ cm x bone deep
underlying frontal bone cut in outer table for
4 cm.
(7) Abrasion over (R) angle of mandible
1 cm x ½ cm reddish in colour.
(8) Incised wound over (R) supra
clavicular region. Transverse, 4 cm x 2 cm x
3 cm deep.
(9) Abrasion over rt. Shoulder 1 cm x ½
cm. reddish in colour.
(10) Incised wound over lateral aspect of
upper 3rd of Rt. Arm oblique 1 cm x ¼ cm x

3 cm deep.
(11) Incised wound over dorsum of (Rt)
hand, transverse 2 cm x ½ cm skin deep with
tailing on lateral end.
(12) Linear abrasion over middle 3rd of (Rt)
forearm oblique, 3 cm in length, reddish in
colour.
(13) Incised wound over anterior aspect,
upper 3rd of (Rt) forearm, transverse, 3 cm x
½ cm x muscle deep.
(14) Incised wound over medial aspect of
middle 3rd of (Rt) thigh, 2 cm x ½ cm x muscle
deep.
(15) Incised wound over antero lateral
aspect of middle 3rd of (Rt) thigh, oblique 7 cm
x 3 cm x muscle deep gaping present.
(16) Incised wound, 1½ cm below injury
No.15, oblique on lateral aspect, 6 cm x 3 cm
x muscle deep.
(17) Incised wound over lateral aspect of
lower 3rd of left thigh verticle of size 5 cm x
2½ cm x muscle deep gaping present.
(18) incised wound over dorsum of left
hand transverse 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.
(19) Incised wound 5 in no. present over
dorsum of left wrist size varying from 3 cm x
½ cm x muscle deep to 1½ x ½ cm x muscle
deep ½ cm aparl–transverse.
(20) incised wound over palmar aspect of

thenac & Hypothenar region left hand,
transverse, 8 cm x 1½ cm x muscle deep.
(21) Incised wound over palmar aspect of
base of left middle & ring finger of size 1½
cm x ½ cm x bone deep each.
(22) Incised wound over anterior aspect of
left elbow transverse of size 5½ cm x 1½ cm
x muscle deep.
(23) Incised wound over lateral aspect of
lower 3rd of left arm, 3½ cm x 1½ cm x muscle
deep verticle.
(24) Incised wound over posterolateral
aspect of middle 3rd of left arm, transverse,
7 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep.
(25) Incised wound over lateral aspect of
Upper 3rd of left arm, transverse, 6 cm x 2½
cm x muscle deep.
(26) Incised wound over floor aspect of
left wrist 3 cm proximal to wrist, 2½ cm x
½ cm x muscle deep transverse.
(27) Stab wound over back 4 cm left to
mid-line at 3rd level of size 2½ cm x 1½ x
cavity deep angles acute.
(28) Stab wound 1 cm below inj. (27)
oblique of size 1 ½ cm x 1 cm x cavity deep
angles acute.
(29) Incised wound over (Rt) intrascapular region, verticle of size 3 cm x ½ cm x
muscle deep.

(30) Incised wound over back across midline at T 10 of size, 7 cm x 1½ cm x muscle
deep.
(31) Stab would over back in (Rt) 5th
intercostal space in posterior axillary fold
oblique of size 5 cm x 2½ cm x cavity deep.
(32) Incised wound 8 cm medial to (Rt)
shoulder tip verticle of size 2 cm x 1½ cm x
muscle deep.
(33) Incised wound over dorsal aspect of
proximal phalanx of left little finger, verticle
2 cm x ¼ cm x skin deep.
(34) Incised wound over vinar border of
left hand, verticle 2 ½ cm x ½ cm x muscle
deep. 
All injuries are fresh and ante mortem.”
He has opined that the injuries were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post
mortem report is at Exh. 48.
14) The report of the Chemical Analyser at
Exh. 21 shows that the knife and clothes of the
appellant were stained with blood of `B' group. The
clothes of deceased Sunita were also found stained

with blood of `B' group. However, it appears that the
findings of the Chemical Analyser particularly about
presence of blood of `B' group on the knife and clothes
of the appellant have not been put to the appellant in
his statement under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Only the factum of seizure of
clothes of the appellant is put to him. So, that part of
the evidence that the clothes of the appellant were
stained with blood of `B' group will have to be left out
of consideration. The circumstances, therefore,
against the appellant are that the relations between
the appellant and deceased Sunita were strained and
the evidence of P.W.8 Wasudeo that deceased Sunita
was last seen alive in the company of the appellant at
10.15 p.m. In respect of the first circumstance, the
evidence is clear and cogent that the relations
between the appellant and deceased Sunanda were
strained. The evidence of P.W.2 Tukaram indicates
that the appellant was suspecting the character of his
wife Sunita. In respect of the second circumstance

also, the evidence of P.W.8 Wasudeo after being tested
in the cross-examination is that deceased Sunita had
left in the company of the appellant at 10.15 p.m.
Shortly thereafter, dead body of deceased Sunita was
noticed on the Ambazari road having sustained
innumerable injuries. The inference is irresistible that
it is the appellant and the appellant alone, who had
committed murder of deceased Sunita. Apart from
taking the defence of denial, the appellant has not
given any explanation as to what happened to Sunita
after he had picked her up from the factory where she
was employed.
15) From close scrutiny of the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, according to us, the
prosecution has established the offence against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The finding
recorded by the trial Court cannot be faulted with.
Resultantly, there being no merit in the appeal, the
same is dismissed confirming the conviction and

sentence. 

Print Page