Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 799

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Saheb S/o Maroti Bhumre – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 313-314 of 2012
Decided On : 18-09-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Though maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is only a rule of caution and has not assumed status of a rule of law in Indian context, attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood and where such separation is impossible, there cannot be conviction.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 191(3) and 103(1) read with 190] – Murder and rioting – Common object – Conviction and sentence – There are a lot of a lot of inconsistencies in deposition of informant – Picturing a scenario where twenty-two persons entered into premises armed with axes and sticks on a dark night, even if dimly lit by moonlight, it is difficult to believe that in melee that ensued, any person who was under attack would be in a position to identify, clearly and with certainty, as to who was assaulting whom and with what weapon – All that defence needs to establish is existence of reasonable doubt for accused to be given benefit thereof – Though maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is only a rule of caution and has not assumed status of a rule of law in Indian context, attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood and where such separation is impossible, there cannot be conviction – Appellants have suffered 10 years’ incarceration – Given lacunae in prosecution’s case and shaky evidence adduced in support thereof by informant, appellants acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. (Paras 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 324, both read with Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court sustained the conviction of Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and acquitted the remaining six accused on the ground that the charges levelled against them were not specific in relation to the injuries afflicted on deceased and other injured persons. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, but their conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 148 IPC were confirmed.
Findings of Court:
Bail bonds and sureties furnished by appellants shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid by appellants shall be refunded.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. Twenty-two persons stood accused of the murder of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare and were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, Maharashtra, in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2006. By judgment dated 24.04.2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held nine of them guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 324, both read with Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They were sentenced to imprisonment coupled with fine. Aggrieved thereby, all nine of them filed appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. Accused No. 2 (Khemaji S/o Maroti Gabare), was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 2008, Accused No. 3 (Saheb S/o Maroti Bhumre), was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2009; and Accused No. 5 (Sitaram Pandurang Gabare), was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2009. By judgment dated 06.12.2010, a Division Bench of the High Court sustained the conviction of Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and acquitted the remaining six accused on the ground that the charges levelled against them were not specific in relation to the injuries afflicted on the deceased and other injured persons. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, but their conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 148 IPC were confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, Accused Nos. 3 and 5 are in appeal before this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2012 was filed by Saheb, Accused No. 3, while Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2012 was filed by Sitaram Pandurang Gabare, Accused No. 5. Significantly, Khemaji S/o Maroti Gabare, Accused No. 2, did not choose to file an appeal against the confirmation of his conviction.

2. Both the appellants were incarcerated on 08.04.2006 and remained in custody. It was only on 30.06.2016 that this Court directed their release on bail. In effect, the appellants have suffered imprisonment for over ten years.

3. The case of the prosecution was as follows: On 08.04.2006, at about 7.30-8.00 pm, the deceased Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare and his family members, viz. his wife, Janakibai Gabare, their son, Ganesh, and their daughter-in-law, Annapurnabai, and others were attacked by the accused with axes and sticks at the residence of the deceased in Village Singi. On Janakibai Gabare’s complaint, FIR No. 36 of 2006 was registered. The deceased was stated to have expired on the spot. His post-mortem examination revealed that he had suffered as many as nine injuries. The cause of his death was ascertained as - head injury and intracranial hemorrhage with multiple fractures. Nine other persons were said to have been injured during the incident. The cause for the altercation was stated to be political rivalry. The deceased, as per his widow, was the Sarpanch of the Village about 15 years prior to the incident and since then, Khemaji and Sambhaji, two of the accused, were on inimical terms with him. Thereafter, Laxmibai, the wife of the nephew of the deceased, became the Sarpanch of the Village, leading to further animosity. Significantly, both Khemaji and Sambhaji were the nephews of the deceased being the sons of his brothers, Maroti and Deorao.

4. Admittedly, at the time of the incident, there was a power cut due to load shedding, but according to the widow, Janakibai, who was examined as PW-1, there was sufficient moonlight to identify all the accused and the weapons that they used during the attack. Fifteen witnesses, in all, were examined by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. Documents and material objects were marked in evidence through them. PW-1 (Janakibai Gabare), PW-4 (Kamalbai Gabare), PW-5 (Govind Gabare) and PW-8 (Ganesh Gabare) were examined as eye-witnesses to the attack on the deceased. All four of them are closely related. As already noted, Janakibai Gabare is the wife of the deceased while

Click Here to Read the rest of this document