Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Sundresh, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
The State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Balasaheb Bhimsen Patil & Ors. Etc. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1335-1336/2013
Decided On : 09-01-2025
ORDER :
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. These are appeals against the acquittal rendered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court rendered a conviction against the present respondents, which has been overturned by the High Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant State submitted that the High Court has not considered the evidence of the material witnesses, especially, the eye witnesses. PWs-4 to 8, being the eye-witnesses, have clearly deposed against the respondent(s). The recovery has also been proved. The Trial Court took this into consideration. The conviction by the Trial Court, based on the aforementioned relevant material, has been wrongly overturned by the High Court.
4. We are not inclined to interfere with the well- reasoned judgment of the High Court. The High Court took into consideration all the evidences placed before it and came to the right conclusion, that the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed, and there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the testimony of the eyewitnesses Pws-4 to 8. Apart from the same, the alleged recovery had also been doubted by the High Court, holding that the place of recovery was visited by the Police immediately after the post-mortem of the deceased and preparation of panchnama, and it is only thereafter, at a later point of time, that a recovery was made, pursuant to the statements made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by the respondents.
5. In such view of the matter, in the absence of any perversity, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
6. The appeals stand dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The High Court's acquittal was upheld due to contradictions in witness testimonies and issues with the recovery evidence, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence in criminal proceedings.
(1) Though, motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon circumstantial evidence.(2) Report of Ballistic Expert is a....
The court emphasized the necessity of reliable evidence for conviction, ruling that inconsistencies in witness testimonies warranted the benefit of the doubt for the appellant.
(1) Motive acts as a double-edged sword.(2) Disclosure statement – Statement of an accused recorded by a police officer under Section 27 of Evidence Act is basically a memorandum of confession of acc....
Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence – Where extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.
An inference can never be basis of conviction when testimony of a witness is not believed on cogent reasoning.
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
