2008(1) Supreme 222
Supreme Court of india
(From Bombay High Court)
G.P. Mathur & G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla— Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra— Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 579 of 2005
Decided on 16-01-2008
AIR 1952 SC 343; 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706; (1984) 4 SCC 116; (1992) 2 SCC 86; (2002) 8 SCC 45; (2003) 3 SCC 106; (2005) 12 SCC 438; (2005) 7 SCC 603; (2006) 10 SCC 151; (2006) 10 SCC 172; (2007) 3 SCC 755 – Relied upon.
(b)Constitution of India – Article 136 – In exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will be extremely loath to upset the judgment of conviction which is confirmed in appeal unless it is found that the appreciation of evidence in a case, which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, is vitiated by serious errors and on that account miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. (Para 15)
(2003) 3 SCC 106 – Relied upon.
(c)Constitution of India – Article 136 – The courts below committed a serious error by relying on the circumstantial evidence of last scene, the recovery of articles and the sale of the handkerchief by PW7 to the appellant – Impugned orders set aside and appeal allowed. (Para 27)
Facts of the case:
1.On 1.10.1994, PW1 Dr. Rasiklal Dwarkadas Dani, a resident of Pratap Building 173, Dadiseth Agyari Lane, Mumbai, telephonically informed Assistant Police Inspector (API), PW14 R.R. Gaekwad of Police Station Tilak Nagar that a man, who was later on, identified as Satish, was lying on the right side of the stairs of the building in a pool of blood. API Gaekwad reached the spot and removed that person to G.T. Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.
2.After two days, the appellant and one Devabhuma Badapatti were arrested. On the day of his arrest, the appellant is said to have made a statement and then took the police to Room No.45 of the third floor of the building known as Ganesh Bhuvan Dadiseth Agyari Lane, Mumbai and got recovered his pant and shirt which are said to be having stains of blood.
3.The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the prosecution theory regarding motive but relied on the circumstantial evidence and convicted both the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant and confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him, but acquitted Devabhuma Badpatti on the premise that there was no evidence to show that he was a party to the crime.
Findings of the Court:
The trial Court and the High Court committed a serious error by relying on the circumstantial evidence of last scene, the recovery of pant and shirt from Room No.45 of ‘Ganesh Bhuvan’ building, half blade from under the wooden board and the sale of the handkerchief by PW7 to the appellant.
Result : Appeal allowed.
judgment
Per G.S. Singhvi, J. —
1.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.28/1995.
2.On 1.10.1994, PW1 Dr. Rasiklal Dwarkadas Dani, a resident of Pratap Building 173, Dadiseth Agyari Lane, Mumbai, telephonically informed Assistant Police Inspector (API), PW14 R.R. Gaekwad of Police Station Tilak Nagar that a man, who was later on, identified as Satish, was lying on the right side of the stairs of the building in a pool of blood. API Gaekwad reached the spot and removed that person to G.T. Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. PW14 recorded the information given by Dr. Dani as Ex.P6 and treated the same as FIR. He then handed over the investigation to PW13 Shamsherkhan Wazirkhan Pathan, who was acting as night Police Inspector at L.T. Marg Police Station. The latter prepared Panchnama of the dead body. From the papers found in the pocket of the clothes of the deceased, the police contacted his brother, PW3 Rajaiyya Pochyya Bandapalli on 1.10.1994 itself and recorded his statement. After two days, the appellant and one Devabhuma Badapatti were arrested. On the day of his arrest i.e. 3.10.1994, the appellant is said to have made a statement and then took the police to Room No.45 of the third floor of the building known as Ganesh Bhuvan Dadiseth Agyari Lane, Mumbai and got recovered his pant and shirt which are said to be having stains of blood. On 4.10.1994, the appellant was medically examined by PW10 Shiv Narain Daund, who found that the thumb and index finger of the appellants right hand had been injured sometime back. On the next day i.e., 5.10.1994, the appellant took the police to PW7 Mohd. Farid Abdul Gani, who claims to have sold the handkerchief, which was found near the body of the deceased. On 6.10.1994, the appellant is said to have given some more information to the police and got recovered half blade (marked as Article 7) which was lying under the wooden platform in front of Ganesh Bhuvan. The clothes of the deceased, the pant and shirt belonging to the appellant and blade were sent for chemical examination. As per the Chemical Examiners Report, the clothes of the deceased were having human blood of O group. The pant and shirt, allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant also had blood stains, but it could not be established whether the same was human blood of O group. The stain on the blade was also said to be of human blood but its identity could not be established by the chemical examiner.
3.After completing the investigation, the police submitted challan in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of the Sessions, Greater Bombay.
4.The prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Rasiklal Dwarkadas Dani, PW2 Dinesh Dubey, with whom Devabhuma Badapatti is said to have worked till September 1994, PW3 Rajjaiyya (brother of the deceased), PW4 Hari Oval and PW8 Ranjit Bishram Jaiswal, who acted as panches for recovery of the clothes from Room No.45 of Ganesh Bhuvan, PW5 Salim Sheikh, who acted as panch for recovery of half blade beneath wooden board in front of Ganesh Bhuvan, PW6 Shankar Shripati Ulalkar, who was engaged in the work of shaving and cutting hair outside shop No.1 of Ganesh Bhuvan, Dadiseth Agyari Lane, PW7 Mohd. Farid Abdul Gani, who claims to have sold the handkerchief to the appellant, PW9 Balu Shivram Nalwada, who is said to have witnessed the sale of handkerchief by PW7 to the appellant, PW10 Shivraj Narayan Daund, who examined the appellant on 4.10.1994, PW11 Raju Chandu Poojari, who claims to have seen the accused persons with the deceased on the night of the incident i.e. 30.9.1994, PW12 Dr. Avinash Janardan Pujari, who performed the autopsy on the dead body, PW13 PI, Shamsherkhan Vazirkhan Pathan and PW14 API, R.R. Gaikwad. Thereaft
Bodhraj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P.
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.
Deepak Chandrakant Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P.
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.