Back
2002(6) Supreme 45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Mumbai High Court)
Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema, JJ.
Ganesh K. Gulve etc. -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1999
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 324 of 2000, 156, 158, 159-161 of 2002
Decided on 21-8-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : U.R. Lalit, N.C. Kochhar, Sr. Advocates, S.M. Jadhav, Sunil K. Verma, H.K. Puri, P.K. Chakravarthy, Ms. Anu Mohla, B.Y. Kulkarni, Ms. Madhvi Aggarwal and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.
Held : We are unable to accept the contention that the view taken by the trial court in the case of Ganesh K. Gulve was a possible view that was erroneously reversed by the High Court. (Para 20)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 328, 452 and 34-Offences under for murder of 3 and causing serious injuries to several others of same family by a mob of 60-13 convicted-Appealed to High Court-Conviction of 11 upheld-Appeals against to SC-Absence of motive not correct-Case of caste hostility-Non-compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C. 1973-Rightly and adequately dealt by both Courts-Result-Appeals dismissed-Appeal by appellant 53 also dismissed-All appeals dismissed.
Held : Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.156, 158 and 159-161 of 2002 contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive of the crime; the FIR was ante-timed and there was non-compliance of the provision of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate. There is no substance in any of the contentions. In the presence of the eye-witnesses including injured eye-witnesses, the question of the proof of the motive loses its significance. The High Court has, however, duly taken into consideration the motive which was caste hostility and prosperity of the family of the deceased persons and the securing of position by the family member of Satwa in Gram Panchayat. Regarding the FIR, as already noticed, both the trial Court and the High Court have not placed reliance thereupon and the matter has been rightly and adequately dealt with by the trial Court and High Court. There is no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. (Para 21)
Held further : In Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2000, the contention urged was that the High Court has not properly considered the case against the appellant and, therefore, the criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 79/94) filed by him in the High Court deserved to be allowed. We do not agree. The trial court and the High Court, on appreciation of the evidence, have rightly found the case against accused No. 53 being the appellant of this appeal as fully established. There is no merit in his appeal as well. (Para 22)
Held finally : For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in any of the appeals. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed. (Para 23)
JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1999 is a statutory appeal. It has been filed by Ganesh K. Gulve challenging the judgment and order of the High Court dated 25.2.1999 setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in his favour. The High Court has held him guilty for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 324 of 2000, 156, 158 and 159-161 of 2002 have been filed by accused challenging the judgment and order of the High Court confirming their conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
3. For commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 326, 452 and 34 IPC and certain other offences, 60 accused persons were tried in the Sessions Court. The trial court convicted 13 of them for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149, Sections 149 and 307 read with Section 149 and Section 452 read with Section 149 IPC. They are : accused No. 20 Ramchandra Krishna Kamble, accused No.21 Bhawan @ Dharmaji Krishna Kamble, accused No. 22 Narhari Krishna Kamble, accused No. 23 Pandurang Krishna Kamble, accused No. 25 Babu Sopan Mandade, accused No. 27 Namdev Pandurang Kamble, accused No. 28 Venkati Govind Yenjane, accused No. 36 Madan Kerba Jagtap, accused No.44 Rukhmaji Babarao Jagtap, accused No.49 Shivaji Kerba Jagtap, accused No. 50 Ashok Dattarao Jagtap, accused No. 52 Uttam Chandrabhan Jagtap and accused No.53 Shesherao Tukaram Kodale. Imprisonment for life was imposed on them for offence under Section 149 read with Section 302 IPC besides payment of fine and imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine as also varied punishments in respect of other offences.
4. The judgment and order of the trial court was challenged by 12 out of 13 convicted accused by preferring criminal appeals before the High Court. The State of Maharashtra also preferred two appeals before the High Court - one challenging the orders of acquittal passed in favour of 47 accused by the trial court and the other for enhancement of sentence against 13 accused who had been convicted by the trial court.
5. All the appeals have been disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment and order. The High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence of 11 accused persons; acquitted two accused persons, namely, accused No. 36, Madan Jagtap and accused No. 50 Ashok Dattarao Jagtap and one State appeal has been partly allowed by setting aside the judgment and order of the trial court acquitting accused No.24 Ganesh K. Gulve. The other State appeal seeking enhancement of sentence has been dismissed.
6. The judgment and order of the High Court has been challenged by the convicted accused except accused Nos. 27 and 28. These two have not preferred any appeal.
7. The main arguments have been addressed by Shri U.R. Lalit in Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1999. One of the contentions of the learned counsel was that the conclusion drawn and view taken by the trial court acquitting Ganesh K. Gulve was a reasonable and possible view which did not call for reversal by the High Court. Counsel further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused No.24; there were material contradictions in the testimony of the eye-witnesses as also the version as deposed by the eye-witnesses is not corroborated by the medical evidence and the trial court was, thus, justified in passing order of acquittal.
8. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the evidence in brief is that the three members from the same family, namely, Satwa and his two sons, Mohan and Raosaheb were murdered; there was an attempt to murder the third son and injuries were caused on the lady members of the family- Hirkani (PW17), widow of Satwa, Radhika (PW14) widow of one of the deceased son; Vatschala (PW15) wife of Damu (PW16) son of Satwa on whom attempt to murder was made and also ca
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
