Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Prashant Kumar Mishra, Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No(s). 150-151 OF 2013
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147 and 148 – Murder, attempt to murder and rioting – Common object – Life imprisonment – Acquittal recorded by Trial Court suffered from fundamental misappreciation of evidence – Trial Court overlooked consistent and corroborated testimony of injured eyewitnesses and failed to appreciate legal effect of active participation of appellants as members of an unlawful assembly – High Court, in reversing acquittal, has given cogent and well-reasoned findings based on a proper appraisal of record – Testimonies of eyewitnesses are natural, coherent and mutually corroborative on all material particulars – Appellants actively facilitated commission of offence by accompanying co-accused persons, ensuring confinement of victims and participating in coordinated assault – Medical evidence provides strong corroboration to prosecution’s case and reinforces credibility of eyewitness testimonies – Medical findings align perfectly with ocular evidence and highlight brutal and coordinated nature of attack – Timing, nature and multiplicity of injuries clearly indicate deliberate and orchestrated assault executed in furtherance of common unlawful object – Prosecution has clearly established that all accused persons, including appellants, arrived together, armed with lethal weapons and jointly executed a deliberate and coordinated assault on deceased and other victims – Impugned Judgment affirmed. (Paras 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 45 and 48)
Facts of the case:
Vide the impugned judgment, accused no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and were sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
Findings of Court:
Ocular testimonies of PW-1, PW-7 and PW-9, being natural, cogent and corroborated by medical evidence, clearly establish the active participation of the appellants in a concerted and premeditated attack. Appellants have failed to raise any reasonable doubt or to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the High Court.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2011 is an appeal filed under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”) and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Supreme Court Act”), by Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse (accused no. 3/appellant no. 1) and Raju @ Rajendra Bhiwrao Shirwale (accused no. 4/appellant no. 2), challenging the final judgment dated 02.02.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2001, whereby the High Court partly allowed the said appeal and reversed the order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”), vide the judgment dated 18.05.2001 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2000.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 150-151 of 2013 is an appeal filed under Section 379 of the CrPC and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court Act, by Subhash Raghunath Pawar (accused no. 6/appellant), challenging the final judgment dated 02.02.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 2001, whereby the High Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The High Court also reversed the order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC vide the judgment dated 18.05.2001 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2000.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The brief facts of the present case as per the appellants is that from 25.04.1999 to 27.04.1999, several wedding ceremonies were held in different branches of the Gholap family at village Kari, Pune District. On 26.04.1999, during a wedding procession, Ankush Gholap was assaulted on his head by Vitthal Deoba Gholap, brother of Pandharinath Devba Gholap (accused no. 1). Ankush subsequently registered a police complaint that same night with Bhor Police Station.
4. On 27.04.1999, Ankush, along with Dnyanoba Ravba Gholap, Rajendra Gholap (PW-7) and Shivaji Sanas (PW-9), travelled to Bhor in a jeep driven by Sopan Dagadu Gholap (PW-1). While returning, near Navi Ali, they stopped. At this point, accused no. 1 and Maruti Ramchandra Gholap (accused no. 2) arrived on a motorbike driven by accused no. 3. The accused no. 4 drove another motorbike with two pillion riders, namely, Vitthal Baburao Shinde (accused no. 5) and accused no. 6. The accused no. 3 removed the jeep’s keys and punched PW-1. Meanwhile, the other accused persons dragged Ankush, PW-7 and PW-9 from the jeep. The accused no. 1 and 2 attacked Ankush with sharp weapons, causing his death on the spot while PW-7 and PW-9 sustained serious injuries and PW-1 managed to escape and later reported the incident to police.
5. The postmortem examination of Ankush (deceased) was conducted by Dr. Praveen Chaudhary (PW-16), confirming death due to haemorrhagic shock from multiple injuries caused by sharp weapons. PW-7 and PW-9 were treated for grievous injuries at local hospitals. The accused persons were arrested and the charge sheet was filed.
6. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused persons for committing offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 of the IPC and alternatively under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the trial, 27 witnesses were examined. The defence presented one alibi witness, Balasaheb Gholap (DW-1), for accused no. 1 and 2.
7. The trial court, on 18.05.2001, convicted accused No. 1 and 2 for committing offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, respectively. The accused no. 6 was also convicted for committing an offence pun
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
