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

2008 Supreme(SC) 385

P.P. Naolekar, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Shantabai and others - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2006
Decided On: 3-3-2008

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 186o-Sectlon 300-Murder-Conviction on circumstantial evidence-When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, circumstances must be cogently and firmly established, should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt I)f the accused, should form . a chain so complete that it could be concluded that the crime has been committed by the accused and none else and is incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused-Such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence-In the instant case, prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances holding appellants guilty of the crime beyond reasonable doubt-Conviction set aside.

       (Paras 11 and 22)

       (1982)2 SCC 351 : AIR 1982 SC 1157, (1981)1 SCC 511 : AIR 1981 SC 738, (1982)3 SCC 462 : AIR 1983 SC 61, (1983)2 SCC 330: AIR 1983 SC 446, 1986 Suppl. SCC 676 : AIR 1987 SC 1921, (1987)1 SCC 1 : AIR 1987 SC 350, AIR 1952 SC 343, (1984)4 SCC 116: AIR 1984 SC 1622, (1996)10 SCC193, (2004)4 SCC 236:-Referred to. ' .

JUDGMENT:

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1. The appellants Shantabai (A-1), Sajan (A-2) and Govind (A-3) have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 1995 confirming the conviction and sentence for life in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short "the IPC"] and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default clause to undergo R.I. for six months awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case No. 160/1993.

2. In all five accused persons were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, under Sections 147, 148 and 302, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC. A-1, A-2 and A-3 were found guilty of the murder of Gunwant Nivrati Dhumale, while Venkar (A-4) and Anshabai (A-5) were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused persons was that A-1, A-2 and A-3 are residents of village Loni and A-4 and A-5 are residents of village Shilvani. A-1 is the wife of A-2 and A-3 is their son. A-5 is daughter of A-1 and A-2 and A-4 is the husband of A-5. Gunwant Nivrati Dhumale was the brother of complainant Tanaji Nivrati Dhumale. Gunwant Nivrati Dhumale had been living with his brothers, namely, Tanaji (PW-1); Shivaji; his parents; his wife Mathurabai (PW-4), and two daughters and one son. The prosecution alleged that Gunwant had illicit relations with A-1 since last so many years and this fact was known to all the village people. Gunwant occasionally used to reside in the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3. A-1 requested Gunwant to stop visiting her house because her daughter (A-5) has now been married to Venkar (A-4) and her son (A-3) has also become major, but Gunwant continued to visit the house of A-1.

4. On the day of the incident, i.e. on 14.08.1993, Gunwant left his house in the morning and did not return till late evening. Mathurabai (PW-4), wife of Gunwant, informed her parents-in-law about this fact. They asked PW-1 to make search for Gunwant. PW-1 made inquiry about his brothers whereabouts from Namdev (PW-5) at about 6.00 p.m., who at the relevant time was working as a servant in Flour Mill near the bus stand. PW-5 informed PW-1 that he saw A-1, A-2 and A-3 along with A-5 hurriedly going towards the Bus Stand. Thereafter, PW-1 and some other village people went to the house of A-1. They found the doors of the house lying open and the house was empty. They noticed the dead body of Gunwant lying just in the compound of the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3. On visual examination of the dead body of Gunwant, PW-1 and other village people noticed head injury and many other injuries on various parts of his body. On 15.08.1993, PW-1 lodged the report on the basis of which first information report (Ext.38) was registered by the Police Head Constable, Ganesh (PW-10) naming A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5, as culprits for the murder of Gunwant.

5. The Head Constable (PW-10), on the next day of occurrence, went to the spot of the incident and collected stones, axe and soil, etc. from the spot vide Spot Panchnama (Ext.44). He also prepared inquest report of dead body of Gunwant (Ext.43). The dead body of Gunwant was sent for post mortem examination to Primary Health Centre, Hanegaon. PW-2, Dr. Hanumant, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gunwant. He noticed about 13 injuries on his dead body. All the injuries were ante-mortem. The post mortem report placed on record is marked as Ext.41. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death of Gunwant occurred because of shock due to cardio respiratory failure, caused by injury to brain and brain hemorrhage. PW-10 seized the blood-stained clothes of the deceased. He handed over further investigation to PSI Mirza Rahematulla Baig (PW-11). PW-11 recorded supplementary statements of PW-1 and other witnesses. H














































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