SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., R.S. SARKARIA AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1974, D/- 18-10-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. S. Javali, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) (for No. 1) and Mr. N. H. Hingorani and Mrs. K. Hingorani, Advocates (for No. 2), for Appellants; Mr. H. R. Khanna Advocate and Mr. M. N. Shroff Advocate, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 – Injures – Investigation - On his approach Dana appellant ran away carrying knife with him but appellant was still there dealing blows to deceased - Caught hold by his shirt slapped and upbraided him as to why he was assaulting deceased - Got himself released from grip and ran away in same direction in which his companion had gone - Went to his office in hind street - His son Mohan was there - Large number of other persons were also there - He did not whisper even word about occurrence to any of them not even to his son Mohan - At his request his son Mohan drove him in car to his residence – Held, In sum court find that over all view of evidence taken by trial Court was reasonable - While it is true that some reasons given by trial Court if taken individually do not appear to be substantial or impeccable but taken in their totality they certainly render evidence of material prosecution witnesses unsafe to be acted upon - All infirmities and flaws pointed out by trial Court assumed importance when considered in light of all pervading circumstance that there was inordinate delay in recording statement on basis of which was registered and further delay in recording statements - This circumstance looming large in background inevitably leads to conclusion that prosecution story was conceived and constructed after good deal of deliberation and delay in shady setting highly redolent of doubt and suspicion - This is all vitiating circumstance court say so with great respect could not be and has not been effectively dispelled by High Court except by blind acceptance of ipse dixit of Sub Inspector Potion this point in preference to testimony who was according to Prosecution prime mover of gear - For all foregoing reasons court allow this appeal set aside conviction of appellants and acquit them of charges leveled against them - Appeal allowed
Judgment
R. S. SARKARIA, J. :- This appeal is directed against a judgment dated December 2/4, 1972, of the High Court of Bombay, whereby it converted the acquittal of the appellants herein, into a conviction under S. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C.
2. According to the prosecution, Damji had illicit relations with Smt. Bachibai wife of Dana Ravji Patel, appellant, who was original accuseed No. 1 at the trial. Dana was aware of these relations, and about two to four months before the occurrence, he had threatened to kill the deceased. Damji deceased, along with his wife and daughter, was living in a room in Building No. 3, Bhaveshwar Nagar, Ghatkopar, Bombay.
3. On November 29, 1969, at about 7 p. m. the deceased was returning home on his bicycle. When he entered the lane adjacent to the said Building No. 3, both the appellant assaulted him with knives, Pramila (P. W. 2), aged about 13 years, the daughter of the deceased, was sitting on a charpoy in the compound of Building No. 3 This compound is enclosed by a wall and is close to the lane. Another girl, named Kuvarbai (P. W. 5). also aged 13 year was sitting on the Otal nearby. On being attacked, the deceased cried out : Bachao Bachao. On hearing this, Pramila got up and ran to the place of occurrence. On coming out of the compound gate, she saw both the appellants causing injuries with knives to the deceased who was then lying on the ground. His legs were in the gutter and the rest of the body on the road. Pramila asked the assailants as to why they were assaulting her father. The appellant Ganesh thereupon brandished his kinfe and under pain of death, threatened her to go away, Pramila then raised a hue and cry, on hearing which, Welji Harkha (P. W. 3), a Contractor, who was going in his car to his office in a nearby building, was attracted to the spot. Welji stopped his car and immediately proceeded towards the scene of occurrence. On his approach, Dana, appellant ran away carrying the knife with him, but Ganesh appellant was still there dealing blows to the deceased. Welji caught hold of Ganesh by his shirt, slapped and upbraided him as to why he was assulting the deceased. Ganesh got himself released from Weljis grip and ran away in the same direction in which his companion had gone. Welji then went to his office in the hind street. His son, Mohan was there. A large number of other persons were also there. He did not whisper even a word about the occurrence to any of them, not even to his son, Mohan. At his request, his son Mohan, drove him in the car to his residence.
4. At the spot. Kuvarbai (P. W. 5), on seeing the appellant assaulting the deceased, ran to the residential room of the deceased and informed his wife, Santukbai (P. W. 6). Thereupon, Santukbai rushed to the place of occurrence and found her husband lying in a pool of blood. She, also, saw her daughter, Pramila, standing there. Pramila and Santukbai, both pulled out the deceased from the gutter to the road. Pramila then ran to her uncle. Kanjibhai (P. W. 7), who was residing in the vicinity, and informed him about the incident. Pramila returned to the spot along with Kanjibhai. By that time, one Ravji (P. W. 1), who had been bethrothed to Pramila, had come to the spot. He learned from Santukbai and Pramila all about the occurrence. At about 7.30 p. m., Constable Shinde (P. W. 20), along with a Head Constable and another Constable, who were on Patrol duty, came to the scene, Shinde learnt from the persons present at the spot how the deceased had been assaulted with knives. Shinde and Ravji then put the deceased in a taxi and took him to Police Station. Ghatkopar. Shinde informed the Police Sub-Inspector Patil (P. W. 21), who was incharge of the Police Station at that time. The deceased was then taken to the Sion Hospital by another Policy Constable. Shinde and Ravji accompanied the deceased. On reaching the Hospital, the doctor declared the deceased dead. At about 8.30 p. m., Ravji and Shinde returned to the Police
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.
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.