SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
Khashaba Maruti Shelke, Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 1972, D/-23-7-1973.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 307, 324, 333, 149 and 332 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 and 27 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – 3, 4 (b) and 5 – Murder Offence – Appeal Against Conviction - Appellant was wanted in two murder cases - Members of police party were informed that appellant had fired at (PW 21) of village at latter s house and thereafter had run away - Sub Inspector heard sound of firing from inside house - It was dark inside - Sub Inspector had a torch in his left hand and he flashed it while holding a revolver in right hand - Head Constable then entered a room of house - Head Constable directed a police constable to fire at that man, but that man escaped without being hit - Another man thereafter emerged from back door of Ananda s house and escaped - Superintendent of Police Krishna then arrived at house of Ananda and took steps to send Sub Inspector to hospital for medical treatments - Police constables, who too were injured, were also sent along with Sub Inspector Mardur - Whether appellant possessed hand-grenade in question and exploded same, as a result of which injuries were caused to two deceased persons and different police officials – Held, It is rather unfortunate that in a case like present wherein two persons were killed and a number of others were injured, no direct evidence could be produced as to who had exploded hand-grenade which caused injuries to deceased persons and other members of police party - Difficulty in procuring direct evidence can be traced to fact that police chose to arraign as accused different inmates of Ananda s house - If two inferences are possible from circumstantial evidence, one pointing to guilt of accused, and other, also plausible, that commission of crime was act of someone else, circumstantial evidence would not warrant conviction of accused - In case circumstantial evidence relied upon by High Court for maintaining conviction of accused for an offence entailing capital punishment does not satisfy above requirement, an interference would be called for by this Court - It would be apparent from what has been discussed above that circumstantial evidence relied upon by prosecution in this case is not of such a character as can be held to be consistent only with guilt of appellant - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
KHANNA, J.: - Khashaba Maruti Shelke (33) along with eight others was tried in the court of Sessions Judge Sangli for offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 and 333/34 Indian Penal Code S. 25 Arms Act read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code, Section 27 Arms Act read with S.34 Indian Penal Code, Section 3 Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, S. 4 Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Section 5 Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 6 Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. In the alternative, there were charges against the accused for the above offences read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the other eight accused and convicted the appellant for offences under Section 302 Indian Penal Code on two counts for causing the death of Head Constable Yesade (45) and Smt. Balkabai (70) and sentenced him to death on each count. The appellant was further convicted under S. 307 Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder PSI Mardur and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The appellant was also convicted under S. 333 Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to police constable Madane and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Conviction was also recorded against the appellant under Section 332 Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to police constables Huzare, Havaldar, Savant and More and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on that count. The appellant was convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each count. Conviction was also recorded against the appellant under Sections 3 and 4 (b) of the Explosive Substances Act and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on each count. In addition to that the appellant was convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The sentences of imprisonment, if necessary, were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon the appellant in another case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. On appeal and reference to the High Court, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was affirmed. The appellant thereafter has come up in appeal to this Court by special leave.
2. The prosecution case is that the appellant was wanted in two murder cases of 1962 and 1966 but he could not be apprehended as he was absconding from 1962. From March 1967 to May 1971 Sub Inspector Ramchandra Mardur (PW 58) was posted in Sangli District and his main duty was to trace the absconding accused and to detect the offenders involved in property offences.
3. On July 24, 1970, it is stated, an informant informed Sub Inspector Kumbhar of police station Radhanagari in Kolhapur District that the appellant, who is a resident of village Kameri, was present in village Kavathe-Piran in District Sangli. Kavathe-Piran is seven miles from Sangli. Sub Inspector Kumbhar there-upon left for Sangli to inform the Superintendent of Police. On July 25 Head Constable Naik (PW 18) of police station Radhanagari along with three others went to village Kavathe-Piran and met the informant there. They concealed themselves inside a house and through the chinks of a door saw the appellant going on the road. The appellant was then carrying a gun and a bandolier containing cartridges. Head Constable Naik and others thereafter went to Sangli and informed Superintendent of Police Krishnan about the whereabouts of the appellant.
4. On July 26, 1970 Sub Inspector Mardur was directed by Superintendent of Police Krishnan to arrange a raid party for the apprehension of the appellant. A party of 30 armed constables along with a tear gas squad of three constables then went to the outskirts of village Kavath
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.