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
| 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
The conviction based solely on the testimony of an interested witness is unsustainable without corroboration, especially when the witness's reliability is questioned.
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....
Conviction on sole eyewitness unreliable due to contradictions in assault manner/place, house layout inconsistency, suspicious family conduct; benefit of doubt where guilt not proved beyond reasonabl....
(1) Murder – Truthful and voluntary dying declaration can by itself form sole basis of conviction without necessity of corroboration.(2) Number of witnesses – It is quality and not quantity of eviden....
(1) Appreciation of evidence – Same treatment is required to be given to defence witnesses as is to be given to prosecution witnesses.(2) Murder – Only because motive is established, conviction canno....
The court emphasized that witness credibility must be rigorously assessed, particularly in cases involving familial relationships and pre-existing enmity, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’.
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.