1. Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder — recovery of dead body — reliance on eye-witness testimony. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1803
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Sandeep @ Babu Bhausaheb Kate - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1594 of 2015, 563 of 2016
Decided On : 21-09-2017
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Richa Kapoor, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta II, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Richa Kapoor, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta II, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.
Conviction cannot be sustained without clear evidence that the accused shared a common intention or object with the main perpetrator to cause death, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Offence Of Murder – Order Of Conviction – Sandeep @ Babu Bhausaheb Kate, Raosaheb Vithal Pisal and Sanjay Maruti Samge, appellants before us, challenge their conviction and sentence for the murder of one Ravindera. – According to case of prosecution, Ravindera was missing from 20th March, 2002. – A missing report was lodged by his father PW-1, Ankush Pisal. – When he was informed by the Police of the recovery of dead body, a formal FIR was registered on 1st April, 2002. – However, FIR was only to effect that Ravindra was kidnapped as there was suspicion on account of his illicit relationship with wife of Raosaheb Vithal Pisal. – Held, Even if the version of Kavita Govind is accepted, according to her it was Popat Khandu Pisal who lifted the stone and hit on the head of Ravindera which resulted in his death. – Other accused were only accompanying to the main accused. Meena Dutta Jadhav has already been acquitted and her acuittal has not been questioned. – The role attributable to the appellants before us is of being present along with the main accused Popat Khandu Pisal. – Court do not find any clear evidence against the appellants of their sharing common intention or object with Popat Khandu Pisal to cause death of the deceased Ravindra. – Their involvement is not free from doubt. – Court is of the view that the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. – Their conviction and sentence are set aside and they are acquitted. They are in custody. They be released from custody unless required in any other case. – Appeals Allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction and sentence for murder based on the lack of evidence regarding the appellants' active role in the crime. (Para 2 )
3. Evidence suggests the main accused committed the killing while others were merely present, with no proof of shared common intention or object. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Absence of clear evidence regarding common intention or object to commit a crime entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeals allowed — conviction and sentence set aside — appellants acquitted and ordered to be released from custody. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. What is the requirement for convicting individuals who were present during a crime but did not commit the primary act?
There must be clear evidence that the individuals shared a common intention or object with the main perpetrator to cause the death of the deceased. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. How does the benefit of doubt apply to the conviction of an accused?
When the involvement of the accused is not free from doubt and evidence of common intention is lacking, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, resulting in acquittal. (Para 5 , 6 )
ORDER :
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Sandeep @ Babu Bhausaheb Kate, Raosaheb Vithal Pisal and Sanjay Maruti Samge, appellants before us, challenge their conviction and sentence for the murder of one Ravindera. According to the case of the prosecution, Ravindera was missing from 20th March, 2002. On 27th March, 2002, a missing report was lodged by his father PW-1, Ankush Pisal. When he was informed by the Police of the recovery of the dead body, a formal FIR was registered on 1st April, 2002. However, the FIR was only to the effect that Ravindra was kidnapped as there was suspicion on account of his illicit relationship with wife of Raosaheb Vithal Pisal.
3. During investigation six persons were named. Madhukar Rajaram Pisal died, Meena Dutta Jadhav has been acquitted and Popat Khandu Pisal is not before us, though he has also been convicted. Dead body of the deceased Ravindra was recovered at the instance of Popat Khandu Pisal. The prosecution has mainly relied on the statement of PW-4, Kavita Govind, who claim to be eye-witness and whose statement was recorded on 14th April, 2002, for the first time.
4. Even if the version of Kavita Govind is accepted, according to her it was Popat Khandu Pisal who lifted the stone and hit on the head of Ravindera which resulted in his death. Other accused were only accompanying to the main accused. Meena Dutta Jadhav has already been acquitted and her acuittal has not been questioned. The role attributable to the appellants before us is of being present along with the main accused Popat Khandu Pisal.
5. We do not find any clear evidence against the appellants of their sharing common intention or object with Popat Khandu Pisal to cause death of the deceased Ravindra. Their involvement is not free from doubt.
6. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Their conviction and sentence are set aside and they are acquitted. They are in custody. They be released from custody unless required in any other case.
7. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
