VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Baban Shankar Daphal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, read with Section 379 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[CrPC] seeking to challenge the impugned judgment and final order dated 25.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 1994 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby High Court convicted Accused No. 1 to 4 (appellants herein) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18602[IPC] and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 each, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; and vide the same judgment, the High Court acquitted Accused No. 7.
2. For the sake of brevity and continuity, the parties are referred to by their original nomenclature. Lalsaheb is the deceased who was married to Kamal (PW-3), and they had three children: a daughter, Sushila (PW-4), another daughter who has not been examined and a son, Sanjay (PW-7). Deceased had two brothers—Shankar (Accused No. 5) and Hanmant (Accused No. 6). Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Baban, Prakash, and Suresh) a
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
Ganapathi v. State of T.N.; (2018) 5 SCC 549 [Para 29]
Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry. (2010) 1 SCC 199 [Para 29]
The High Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine its reliability, and medical evidence should support rather than contradict eyewitness accounts.
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
(1) If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, order would be perverse.(2) When there is a direct evidence i....
The court affirmed the High Court's decision to convict based on strong eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, establishing premeditated murder with common intention despite minor di....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while minor contradictions in witness testimony should not undermine the core evidence substantiating the charges.
(1) A mere message or a telephonic message which does not clearly specify offence, cannot be treated as FIR.(2) What constitutes proof of common intention, may differ from situation to situation.
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense – It must grow out of evidence in the case – When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit o....
(1) Proof of fact – Law does not contemplate stitching pieces of evidence in a watertight manner, for standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable do....
The higher evidentiary value of injured eyewitness testimony and the principle that minor contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, which do not go to the root of the matter, cannot be considered mat....
(1) Murder – Once eyewitnesses do not recognize presence of chance witnesses at the time of occurrence, then their testimonies become unrealistic and concocted.(2) Appreciation of evidence – Quality ....
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.