SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 341

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Mehatar – Appellants
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2014 With Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2014
Decided On : 11-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv. Ms. Ruchika Bhan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv.

The conviction based solely on the testimony of an interested witness is unsustainable without corroboration, especially when the witness's reliability is questioned.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 452, 302 read with Section 149 - Criminal appeals against conviction for murder and related offences - The trial court convicted the appellants based on the testimony of an interested witness, which was found to be unreliable by the High Court - The High Court acquitted six other accused based on the same witness's testimony, raising doubts about its credibility - The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be maintained without corroboration, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. (Paras 1, 12, 23, 24)

(B) Witness Testimony - Reliability - The court emphasized that the testimony of an interested witness must be examined with caution, and if found partly reliable, corroboration is necessary for conviction. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for murder following a dispute involving the complainant's family and the accused, leading to violent confrontations resulting in death. The complainant's testimony was central to the prosecution's case. (Paras 1, 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the testimony of the complainant to be unreliable and lacking corroboration, thus quashing the convictions. (Paras 23, 24)

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of the complainant's testimony and the necessity of corroboration for conviction. (Paras 12, 23)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conviction could not stand on the testimony of a witness deemed partly reliable without corroboration from other sources. (Paras 17, 23)

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions quashed and appellants acquitted. (Paras 24, 25)

Table of Content
1. background of the case (Para 1)
2. prosecution's case details (Para 2)
3. witness's actions post-incident (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. defense counsel's submission (Para 9)
5. prosecution's response (Para 10 , 11 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. court's review of testimonies (Para 12 , 13)
7. need for corroboration (Para 23)
8. outcome of the appeals (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. These appeals challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 17th July 2012, thereby dismissing the criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos.569 of 2007 and 8 of 2008 preferred by the present appellants. The criminal appeals filed before the High Court assailed the judgment and order dated 24th October 2007 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) by which the trial court convicted the appellants namely, Rajkumar Baburao Lade (Accused No.1) and Mehatar (Accused No.9) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The story of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the complainant/PW.1-Sindhubai had previous enmity with the accused Rajkumar. It is her case that the she-goats of Rajkumar and other accused persons used to enter her garden and damage her mango trees and leaves of beans. It is her case that on this account, there used to be constant quarrels between them. It is further her case that her brother-in-law Shyamrao, who was residing in village Sitasawangi, had given a piece of land to accused Baburao (accused No.2), wherein he had constructed a hut. It is her case that Shyamrao used to rear pigs in the said plot and on account of this Baburao had dispute with deceased Shyamrao.

2.1 It is the prosecution case that, on a day prior to the date of the incident i.e. 19th December 2005, Shyamrao, brother-in-law of Sindhubai (PW-1) had come to her village and stayed with them. It is the further case that on 20th December 2005 at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning, her husband Diwaru and her brother-in-law Shyamrao were sitting in the house, at which time appellant Rajkumar arrived there and started hurling abuses at her husband- Diwaru and her brother-in-law Shyamrao. It is her version that when the said quarrel was going on, one Tekaram Rahagadale was passing in front of her house for going to answer nature’s call. When Tekaram tried to intervene, appellant Rajkumar threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, Tekaram ran away from the spot. It is her case that, apprehending that there would be danger to her life as well as the life of her husband, she went to the Police Station Tumsar and lodged a complaint with regard to her apprehension. It is her case that when she came back from Tumsar after making some purchases, her brother-in-law and husband were sitting in the varandah of the house. Thereafter, she lit a lamp and also ignited a camp fire in the courtyard since it was winter. She states that in the meantime five persons, who were nephews of Baburao (accused No.2), came to her house from village Sitasawangi. On seeing them, Shyamrao rushed inside the house to save himself. However, they forcibly entered into the house by kicking the door. They dragged her brother-in-law Shyamrao out of the house and started assaulting him with sticks.

2.2 According to her, thereafter appellant Rajkumar holding axe and Kartik (accused No.3) and Baburao (accused No.2) holding sticks came to the spot. All the nephews of Baburao (accused No.2) started assaulting her brother-in-law Shyamrao. When her husband intervened by saying “why are you assaulting Shyamrao”, they started assaulting her husband as well. In the meantime, Babibai (accused No.6) also came on the spot and joined the other accused. Similarly, Dashrath Nagre

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top