Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Manik & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1614-1618 of 2012
Decided on : 25-09-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction of appellants for custodial offenses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the court emphasizes the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, particularly in cases involving police conduct. (Para 4 , 5 , 38) |
| 3. allegations regarding torture and custodial death. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. issues with evidence and its presentation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. the absence of the body of the victim does not negate the implication of police responsibility in custodial death. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. burden of proof in custodial death cases. (Para 34 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. acquittal and conviction outcomes on substantive evidence. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 52) |
| 8. final ruling pertaining to the status of appeals and confirmation of certain convictions. (Para 53) |
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. In these quintuplet appeals, the appellants-convicts who stood the trial in Sessions Trial No.21 of 1996 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia for the charge of commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and/or various other offences under the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) are challenging the common judgment dated 12.07.2011 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 64, 65, 71, 76, 77 and 88 of 1997 whereby and whereunder their conviction and consequential sentences, handed down by the trial Court except under Section 201 read with Section 34 , IPC, were confirmed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. For the sake of convenience appellants are referred to hereafter in this judgment in accordance with the order of their rank as accused before the trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.1614/2018 stood abated as the sole appellant who was the first accused and the sole appellant before the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.64/1997, died on 06.03.2022 and hence, the rest of the appellants in the appeals are, at times, commonly referred to as ‘appellant-convicts’. The appellant-convicts stood the trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 , 330, 331, 342, 343, 348, 354, 385, 387, 193, 201, 202, 203, and 218 read with Section 34 , IPC, in connection with the death of one Shama @ Kaliya s/o Nanu Uke. Though accused No.8 (Sudhir s/o Rambhau Kayarkar) and accused No.9 (Ganesh s/o Raghuji Turkar) were acquitted of the twin offences charged against them under Sections 201 and 202, IPC, read with Section 34 , IPC, the respondent State did not file an appeal against their acquittal before the High Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the offence(s) for which each one of the appellant-convicts (accused Nos. 2 to 7) was convicted and the sentence(s) imposed therefor, by the trial Court, can be enumerated as under: -
| Accused Number | IPC offence(s) for which conviction was entered and the consequential sentence(s) imposed |
| A2 (Ravindra) & A4 (Hans Raj) | Section 304 Part I I read with Section 34 , IPC – sentenced to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- each. |
| A2 (Ravindra), A3 (Manohar), A4 (Hans Raj) & A5 (Vishnu) | Section 331 read with Section 34 , IPC – sentenced to undergo 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. |
| A2 (Ravindra), A3 (Manohar), A4 (Hans Raj) & A5 (Vishnu) | Sections 330 , 348, & 387 read with Section 34 , IPC and sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. |
| A3 (Manohar), A5 (Vishnu), A6 (Vishwanath) & A7 (Dilip) | Section 202 read with Section 34 , IPC – sentenced to undergo 3 months of rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- each. |
| A2 (Ravindra), A3 (Manohar), A4 (Hans Raj), A5 (Vishnu), A6 (Vishwanath) & A7 (Dilip) | Section 203 , IPC. – No separate sentence was imposed. |
| A2 (Ravindra), A3 (Manohar), A4 (Hans Raj), A5 (Vishnu), A6 (Vishwanath) & A7 (Dilip) | Section 201 and 218 read with Section 34 , IPC – sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. |
3. All the corporeal punishments of rigorous imprisonment i
Prosecution must establish identity and criminal culpability beyond reasonable doubt, especially in custodial death cases, where police accountability is critical.
In custodial death cases, all involved in the torture share liability under Section 34 IPC regardless of direct participation, as joint culpability is established by shared common intention.
Custodial death constitutes a severe violation of rights, demanding accountability from police, reaffirming the presumption of police knowledge in such cases for justice.
The court reaffirms that police conduct during official duties must not infringe on rights, prioritizing eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt over medical evidence, thus validating convictions ....
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
Reliance can be based on solitary statement of a witness if court comes to conclusion that said statement is true and correct version of case of prosecution.
The court emphasized that a flawed investigation process and failure to adhere to legal procedures undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the absolution of accused due to a lack of credible evi....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
