The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to critically scrutinize the evidence of eyewitnesses to test their credibility, emphasizing the lack of enmity between the witnesses and the accused as a reason for their credibility.

Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Section 302, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the evidence under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, focusing on the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the need for corroboration of their testimony. The court also emphasized the absence of enmity between the witnesses and the accused, highlighting the lack of motive for false implication.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for the assault and death of the deceased. The trial court acquitted the appellants based on doubts about the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the absence of enmity between the witnesses and the accused. The High Court overturned the acquittal, emphasizing the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the lack of motive for false implication.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court's doubts about the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the absence of enmity between the witnesses and the accused were deemed unreasonable and perverse. The High Court's decision to set aside the acquittal was justified based on the evidence on record.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the need for corroboration of their testimony, and the absence of enmity between the witnesses and the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to critically scrutinize the evidence of eyewitnesses to test their veracity, highlighting the lack of enmity between the witnesses and the accused as a reason for their credibility. The court also discussed the necessity of corroboration of eyewitness testimony and the absence of a motive for false implication.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the acquittal and convict the appellants.

JUDGMENT

B.P. SINGH & H.S. BEDI, JJ.

1. In this appeal under Section 2{a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 read with Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code the appellants Mahadeo and Raju have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated April 6 and 7 of 2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 1995 the appeal filed by the State against their acquittal. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence on record, passed an order of acquittal in favour of all the four accused before it. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order, while upholding the acquittal of two other accused namely Basu and Sidhu, recorded an order of conviction against the appellants herein under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. At the threshold we may notice that all the four accused including the two appellants herein are brothers. The deceased Bhimashankar Madolappa Kapse was the brother of Kashappa Kapse (PW-5) who is the informant in this case. The accused are the sons of their sister. It would thus appear that the parties are related to each other.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 26th June, 1994 at about 8.30 P.M. an occurrence took place in which the deceased was assaulted by the appellants resulting in his death. The first information report was lodged by the informant, PW-5 who, as noticed earlier, is the brother of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence the informant, PW-5 along with PW-8 Mallikarjun Kapse and PW-12 Babling Patil was sitting on the katta in front of the Gram Panchayat. While they were sitting and chatting they noticed the c deceased passing that way. Sometime later a they noticed the appellants herein armed with sword and knife and two of their brothers (since acquitted) going in the same direction. The assault on the deceased took place at a distance of about 150 ft. from the katta where they were sitting. Appellant NO.1 Mahadeo is said to have given two or three blows on the neck of the deceased while appellant Raju gave him two or three injuries on his abdomen. They are also said to have raised the slogan "Kamaleshwar Maharaj Ki Jai" which be attracted the attention of the eye-witnesses. It is further the case of the prosecution that Bhartabai (PW-13) who was related to the deceased as his niece resided in a house about 18 ft. from the place of occurrence. On hearing the commotion she had also come out and witnessed the incident.

4. The motive of the offence is said to be that the deceased was married to Kalawati, sister of the accused, about 20 years ago. They had two sons but both of them died. The deceased with the consent of Kalawati married Pushpa PW-7. From this marriage they had three issues - two sons and one daughter. Since Kalawati and Pushpa did not pull on well the deceased made arrangement for their separate residence. Kalawati lived in the village with her parents while Pushpa resided in the fields where arrangement was made for her. The appellants were aggrieved of the fact that the deceased had been neglecting Kalawati and not giving her due care as was expected of him. This appears to be the motive for the accused to commit the offence.

5. We may observe that so far as the eyewitnesses are concerned, PW-5 is the brother of the deceased while PW-8 and PW-12 are his nephews and PW-13 his niece. Apparently, therefore, the eye-witnesses are related not only to the deceased, but also to the, assailants. They however bore no animus against the appellants and therefore, they cannot be described as inimical witnesses particularly, because the accused who are sons of the sister of PW-5 the informant, are also related to them. There is nothing on record to prove that there was any enmity between the eye witne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 649

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to critically scrutinize the evidence of eyewitnesses to test their credibility, emphasizing the lack of enmity between the witnesses and the accused as a reason for their credibility.

Cases Referred (3)