Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Others
Versus
State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.986 OF 2007
Decided On : 08-10-2009
(1962) 3 SCR 590; (1996) SCC Crl. 1161-Distinguished.
JT 2009(5) SC 431-Referred to.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154 and 157 – FIR - Earliest information in regard to commission of a cognizable offence is to be treated as FIR - Although FIR is not expected to be encyclopedia of events but an information to police to be 'FIR' u/s 154(1), must contain some essential and relevant details of incident - A cryptic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of nature and details of such information may not be treated as FIR - If evidence of eyewitnesses is found cogent, convincing and credible, delay in receipt of copy of FIR by concerned Court would not be of much significance - FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence - It can be used only to discredit testimony of maker thereof - It cannot be utilized for contradicting or discrediting testimony of other witnesses. (Paras 25 to 31)
1962 (3) SCR 590; 1972 SC 209; 1975 SC 185; AIR 1976 SC 2423; AIR 1976 SC 1537; AIR 1976 SC 2197; AIR 1977 SC 1768; AIR 1977 SC 710; AIR 1978 SC 1759; AIR 1979 SC 1019; AIR 1978 SC 1525; AIR 1979 SC 1434; AIR 1980 SC 573; AIR 1983 SC 166; AIR 1993 SC 400; (1994) 5 SCC 188; 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 217; 1996 SCC (Crl.) 1161; 1997 SCC (Crl.) 383; (2001) 6 SCC 181; 2002(9) SCC 408; 2002(1) SCC 71; 2002(6) SCC 470; (2007) 13 SCC 501; (2008) Crl. L.J. 696; (2008) 14 Scale 36; (2009) 1 SCC 120 - Relied on.
Criminal Law - Appreciation of evidence - Where an occurrence takes place involving rival factions, it is but inevitable that evidence would be of a partisan nature - Rejection of such evidence on that ground may not be proper. (Paras 45 to 49)
(1978) 4 SCC 385; (1985) 3 SCC 703; 1988 (Supp) SCC 262 - Relied on.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 149 - Joint liability - For determination of common object of unlawful assembly, conduct of each of member of unlawful assembly before and at the time of attack is of relevant consideration - Where a large number of persons are alleged to have participated in the crime it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were merely passive witnesses and had joined assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain common object of assembly - It may be safe to convict only those persons against whom overt act is alleged with aid of Section 149. (Paras 51 to 59)
(1964) 8 SCR 133; 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 437; (2005) 10 SCC 369; (2008) 16 SCC 529 -Relied on.
Judgment :-
R.M. Lodha, J.
This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the Division Bench of that Court upturned the judgment of acquittal passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in respect of the present appellants and convicted them for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, section 326 read with 149 and Section 148, IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and different period of sentence under other counts along with fine and default stipulation.
2. Nineteen persons were arraigned before the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, section 302 read with section 34, section 307 read with section 149 and section 326 read with section 149, IPC. Trial Court
acquitted all of them. The prosecution challenged the judgment of acquittal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court granted leave to appeal against fourteen accused persons only. As against remaining five accused, leave was refused. During the pendency of appeal, one of the accused, against whom leave was granted, died. Of the remaining thirteen accused, the Division Bench affirmed acquittal of five. The Division Bench convicted eight accused as indicated above.
2.3. Before dealing with the points raised in the appeal, it is appropriate to set out very briefly the prosecution case. Phunde, a small village in Taluka Uran, District Raigad, Maharashtra has two groups; one group is politically associated with the Peasants and Workers Party (PWP) while the other group has alliance with the Congress (I) Party. The party of the assailants belong to PWP and the prosecution witnesses belong to Congress-I party. The deceased was also a Congress-I party worker. The relations between the two groups due to party politics seem to have been strained for quite some time. Several criminal cases have been lodged by these two groups against each other. On the outskirts of the village Phunde, there is a temple popularly known as Gurbadevi Temple. The said temple celebrates every year an annual fair with pomp and show; a Jagran is held in the night on the said occasion. On April 2, 1988, the annual fair at Gurbadevi Temple was being celebrated; the idol was adorned with ornaments and the entire temple complex was illuminated with electric lights. In the night, the villagers gathered in the temple for Jagran. The group belonging to Congress (I) party took active part in the management of the said fair. The celebrations continued until midnight. Thereafter, most of the villagers left the temple. However, 15-20 persons who were in management of the said festival stayed back to keep watch over the ornaments adorned by the idol. Few of those who stayed back were chit-chatting in Sabhamandap, while some of them were simply resting and others kept themselves awake by playing cards. In the intervening night of April 2, 1988 and April 3, 1988 at about 3 - 3.15 A.M., Ramesh Mhatre (A-3) came to the temple, had a look around and then left. A-3 did not speak to anybody. About 15-20 minutes thereafter, A-3 returned to the temple with a group of about 20 persons. All of them were allegedly armed with weapons like iron bar, swords, pharashi, sticks etc. As soon as they reached, they are said to have started attacking the people assembled there. Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre (A-2) and Ramesh Mhatre (A-3) gave iron-bar blows on the back of Nandkumar Mhatre (PW-2) but he escaped and ran towards the village. The accused persons started shouting
`dhara-dhara `mara-mara. Then, they assaulted Suresh Atmaram Gharat (deceased), Sudin Mhatre (PW-4), Namdeo Mhatre (PW-5), Laxman Mhatre (PW-6), Gopal Thakur (PW-7), Mahindra Mhatre (PW-8) and Mahesh Bhoir (PW-10). Suresh Atmaram Mhatre, ran towards Uran- Panvel Road but the accused persons chased him. Maninath Shanker (A-12) assaulted him with sword. The other accused persons assaulted
State of Punjab v. Gurdip Kaur (2009) 1 SCC 120
Ramesh Baburao Devaskar And Others v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (13) SCC 501
Chandu v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (9) SCC 408
Kashiram & Ors. v. State of M.P.2002 (1) SCC 71
Harijana Thirupala & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor A.P.
Ram Ratan & Others v. State of Rajasthan 1962 (3) SCR 590
Dharma Rama Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 537
Vikram and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra JT2007(7) SC 215
Muthu Naicker and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1978) 4 SCC 385
State of U.P. v. Ballabh Das and Others (1985) 3 SCC 703
Masalti vs. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133
Shere And Ors. vs. State of U.P 1991 Supp.(2) SCC 437
Musa Khan & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 SCC 733
Nagarjit Ahir vs. State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC 369
Maranadu And Anr. vs. State by Inspector of Police
Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181
Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2007)13 SCC 501
State of Haryana v. Prabhu & Ors AIR 1979 SC 1019
Ramratan and others v. State of Rajasthan (1962) 3 SCR 590
Chhotu vs. State of Haryana (1996) SCC Crl. 1161
Mahtab Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. JT 2009 (5) SC 431
Sarwan Singh & Ors.etc. v. State of Punjab AIR 1978 SC 1525
Ram Anjore and Others. v. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 185
Gokul & Others v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1972 SC 209
Md. Isak Md. & Others v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1434
Ninaji Raoji Baudha & Another v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 1537
Nattan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 2197
Mariadasan & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1980 SC 573
Bharwad Bhikha Natha & Others v. State of Gujarat AIR 1977 SC 1768
Harshadsingh Pahelvansingh Thakore v. State of Gujarat AIR 1977 SC 710
Bhajan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab AIR 1978 SC 1759
Bansropan Singh and Others v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 166
Sarman & Others v. State of M.P. AIR 1993 SC 400
Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1976 SC 2423
Radhakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 217
Chotu v. State of Haryana 1996 SCC (Crl.) 1161
Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao And Ors. v. State rep. by Public Prosecutor (2008) 11 SCC 722
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.