Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Lala @ Anurag Prakash Aasre – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2018
Decided On : 24-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Satyajit A Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Satya Kam Sharma, Shubham Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Practice of translating any relevant document must not differ so significantly across forums and submissions by parties to cast severe aspersions on evidence, which may otherwise be not warranted.
(2) FIR is starting point of investigation but it is well within rights of prosecution to produce witness statements as they progress further into investigation and unearth specific roles of accused persons.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Practice of translating any relevant document must not differ so significantly across forums and submissions by parties to cast severe aspersions on evidence, which may otherwise be not warranted – Idiosyncrasies of colloquial terms, used for naming an accused, could well be difference between conviction and acquittal of accused. (Para 9)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 120B, 147, 148 and Section 324 – Murder, conspiracy and hurt – Conviction and sentence – While FIR is silent on name of appellant, Court cannot entirely throw out prosecutorial case on such a basis as other reliable evidence are available in the case – FIR is certainly starting point of investigation, but it is well within rights of prosecution to produce witness statements as they progress further into investigation and unearth specific roles of accused persons – FIR only sets investigative machinery into motion – Two courts have concurrently concluded that appellant’s name not being specifically mentioned in FIR, would not justify his acquittal as he was specifically identified by three PWs – In face of appellant’s such identification by name in testimony of eye witnesses, it can be safely concluded that failure to conduct TIP for appellant will not vitiate his conviction – Identity of appellant as one of attacking group members and his specific role in assault is established beyond doubt – Prosecution has produced cogent evidence of appellant being part of a conspiracy by all accused in assault which led to death of deceased and injuries to informant and others – As such, conviction of appellant by trial court, as upheld by High Court, cannot be faulted – Appeal dismissed – State may consider case of appellant for remission at an appropriate stage, on its own merits. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal is directed against analogous judgment dated 09.05.2014, whereby, Crl. Appeal No.236/2011 was dismissed and conviction of the appellant u/S 302, 120B, 147, 148 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld. Key issue to be decided in this appeal is whether appellant was identified as person wielding sword who gave sword blow to Informant (PW1) and also to deceased.
Findings of Court:
In view of his positive identification by eye witnesses, TIP not being conducted, was held to be immaterial. The eye witnesses here have ascribed the same specific role to the appellant and narrated the events in same chronology, without material discrepancies. We also cannot lose sight of fact that this case involves multiple persons attacking in a group with deadly weapons and it is not reasonable to expect recollection of every minute details by the eyewitnesses.
Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Appellant. The Respondent, State of Maharashtra, is represented by Mr Sachin Patil, the learned Advocate on Record.

2. The present Appeal is directed against the analogous judgment dated 09.05.2014, whereby, inter alia, the Crl. Appeal No.236/2011 was dismissed and the conviction of the appellant u/S 302, 120B, 147, 148 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

3. According to the prosecution, at around 9.45 pm on 22.01.2009, the deceased Balu Mandpe was chit chatting with his friends in front of his house at a street corner. At that time, 10/12 persons arrived there on two wheelers and hurled abuse at Balu. The group then started assaulting Balu with sharp edged weapons such as sword, knives, khanjar and farsa, and after causing grievous injuries, the attackers drove away. Balu sustained grievous injuries. Within few minutes of the occurrence, Arun Pohankar, who too was injured in the assault, reported the incident to Imamwada Police Station, where many of the assailants were named or described by appearance. The friends rushed injured Balu to the nearby medical hospital where, he was declared dead. In the FIR, the PW1 had not named the present appellant but had named, Kunal Tagde (A1), Vinod Thakre (A2), Rajput @ Nabut (A3), Sachin Ingle (A4), Ameet Gujar (A5), Shekhar @ Husnya (A8) in the larger group describing one of the attackers by his build and appearance. On the basis of the Complaint, the Crime No. 6/2009 was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police investigation commenced, and the Investigating Officer (IO) (PW11) immediately visited the spot and prepared Spot Panchnama and recorded statement of the witnesses. On conclusion of investigation, Chargesheet was filed and thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court at Nagpur. The nine accused, including the appellant Lala @ Anurag Prakash Aasre faced trial in the Sessions Trial no. 232/2009 on charges drawn up for offences relatable to Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 120B of the IPC. The defense of the Accused is one of total denial.

4. In course of trial, the prosecution presented 11 witnesses, and produced other evidence. However, none of the accused entered the witness box or presented any defense evidence. The learned Session Judge concluded that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of Balu Mandpe, and had assaulted him with sharp and dangerous weapons. According to the Trial Court, the present appellant who was the original Accused No. 6, assaulted the informant Arun (PW1) with a sword. Accordingly, the appellant along with others was convicted u/s 302, 120B IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000 each, in default, to suffer further 1 year imprisonment. The accused, including the appellant were also convicted u/s 147, 148 of the IPC and were sentenced accordingly. The appellant/accused No.6 is additionally convicted u/s 324 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. All substantive sentences were to run concurrently.

5. Four criminal appeals were then filed by the convicted accused including the Crl Appeal No. 236/2011 filed by the present appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant highlighted that the injured informant, while naming six of the assailants by name, had not named the appellant in the FIR. According to the FIR, when Arun (PW1) had intervened to protect Balu Mandpe, “One tall person having longish nose attacked with sword”. When the informant Arun(PW1) resisted the same by his hand, he suffered a sword injury in the wrist area of his left hand. The remaining 6 accused named in the FIR, had carried knives, khanjar and farsa.

6. The incident was apparently a fallout of dispute between t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document