SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 252

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. GROVER AND M.H. BEG, JJ.
1. Yeshwant and others (In Cr. A. No. 173 of 1969). 2. Brahmanand Gogulprasad Tiwari (In Cr. A. No. 90 of 1970) Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra (In Both the Appeals), Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 175 of 1969 and 90 of 1970, D/- 20-4-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. S. Desai, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocate, with him). (In Cr. A. No. 175 of 1969) and Mr. O. N. Mohindroo, Advocate, amicus curiae (In Cr. A. No. 90 of 1970), for Appellants; M/s. B. N. Lokur and S. P. Nayar, Advocates (In Cr. A. No. 175 of 1969) and M/s. B. N. Lokur and B. D. Sharma, Advocates (In Cr. A. No. 90 of 1970), for Respondent.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302 r/w 34,307 r/w 34,34 and 147 – Offence of murder - Murderous assault - These appeals by Special Leave are directed against judgment of High Court of Bombay allowing an appeal of State against acquittal of appellants by Sessions Judge - Appellants, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for murder of one and sentenced to life imprisonment - Appellants were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for having made a murderous assault on one who escaped and lived to depose about attack upon him and murdered man, said one his relation and companion - Whether identity of fifth man, who was certainly there, is satisfactorily established as that of said one – Held, this Court said in Krishna Govind Patil s case 1964 (1) SCR 678 - In the case before court there is evidence that man who used axe on said one was a man who looked like appellant, and could be this accused himself - Result is that court think that case against four out of five appellants is established beyond any reasonable doubt - But, curt doubt whether identity of fifth man, who was certainly there, is satisfactorily established as that of said one - Accordingly court allow appeal of said one and acquit him of all charges levelled against him - He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other connection - Appeal of the four remaining appellant is dismissed and their convictions and sentences are maintained - Order accordingly.

Judgment

BEG, J. :- These appeals by Special Leave are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay allowing an appeal of the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the appellants by the Sessions Judge of Bhandara. The appellants, Yeshwant Suraj Lal and Brahmanand Tiwari were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Sukal and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellants Rupchand and Bhadu alias Ramkishore were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for having made a murderous assault on Zingu who escaped and lived to depose about the attack upon him and the murdered man, Sukal his relation and companion. It appears from the prosecution case that Sukal and Zingu, while returning from a fishing expedition, were waylaid and attacked by five persons, one of whom was armed with an axe, with which he killed Sukal and another with a knife with which he stabbed Zingu thrice, at about 2.30 a.m. on 15-9-66 at a place called Marartola of Village Kati near an electric lamp post. The evidence also disclosed that apart from Zingu (P. W. 8), the injured man there were two more eye-witnesses Babaji (P.W. 17) and Jiwan (P.W. 18) who came from the direction opposite to that of the victims.

2. Zingu (P. W. 8) is said to have managed to extricate himself from his assailants with a jerk or push and to have fled crying for help. He also stated that while escaping, he saw Babaji (P.W. 17) coming from a side road with a lantern in his hand. Zingu rushed into the house of Jainarain situated at a distance of about 200 feet from the lamp post. Then Dr. Narsing Galole (P. W. 2), a Medical practitioner, who was sent for, came and attended to the injuries of Zingu after having seen Sukal lying unconscious near the lamp post. Zingu was said to be in plain but able to speak. Dr. Galole said that Zingu told him:

"I was caught by Rupchand and I was assaulted by Suraj, Sukal was near me. He was caught by Yeshwant and Bhadya Master and Tiwari attacked Sukal."

3. Doctor Galole then sent for a bus. But, before the Bus could arrive, Sukal had expired. Therefore, the Doctor took only Zingu in the bus to the Hospital at Gondia. The Doctor also lodged a First Information Report at 7.05 a. m. on 15-9-1966 at Police Station, Gondia, in which it was stated that Zingu had said that he had been beaten by Suraj Koshti while Rupchand Koshti had held him and that Sukal Pehlwan "had been held by Police Patil, Yeshwantrao Turkar and when Maharaj from Gondia had been asked to beat, he had showered blows". Thus although it was in the evidence of Dr. Galole that Zingu had named five persons yet, the First Information Report lodged by Dr. Galole omits the name of Bhadia Master alias Ramkishore. The omission from the First Information Report which could only be used to cross-examine Dr. Galole was not put to him so that he had no opportunity to explain it. Hence, nothing much could be made out of it.

4. One Chandanlal (P. W. 12) was said to have accompanied Dr. Galole to the scene of occurrence, and, thereafter, to the house of Jainarain and to have heard what Zingu and other eye-witnesses had said there. He deposed that Zingu had said "Yeshwant and Suraj caught hold of Sukal and Tiwari gave him blows. Bhadya Master caught hold of me and Rupchand gave me blows". This statement was in accord with the consistent statements of the three eye-witnesses at the trial. Chandanlal was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Kati since 1966. He admitted that Harlal, the elder brother of Yeshwant, was the Sarpanch until 1966, and that Chandanlal was his Deputy Sarpanch Chandanlal also said that Sukal deceased had also been a candidate at the election. His evidence showed that Jainarain was his brother. We do not see why the evidence of such a witness should be rejected simply because he had taken part, as a Sarpanch naturally must in village elections, or, beca



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top