Back
1979 Supreme(Bom) 244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.A. Jahagirdar D.N. Mehta, JJ.
Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi .... Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 1975, decided on 21-11-1979.
Advocates appeared :
R.S. Mohite for D.V. Patil.
N.G. Mahajan for appeliant (Ori. accused).
J.A. Bardoy, P.P., for State.
The evidence of an eyewitness is not reliable if the witness cannot explain how he was able to see the crime being committed.
Headnote:
The accused was convicted of murder by the Sessions Court. The High Court, on appeal, acquitted the accused. The prosecution's case was that the accused had an illicit relationship with the deceased, Gangubai, and killed her in a fit of rage when she refused to leave her husband for him. The prosecution relied on the evidence of an eyewitness, Mohanya, who claimed to have seen the accused stabbing Gangubai, and on the discovery of a bloodstained knife near the scene of the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of murder by the Sessions Court. The High Court, on appeal, acquitted the accused. The prosecution's case was that the accused had an illicit relationship with the deceased, Gangubai, and killed her in a fit of rage when she refused to leave her husband for him. The prosecution relied on the evidence of an eyewitness, Mohanya, who claimed to have seen the accused stabbing Gangubai, and on the discovery of a bloodstained knife near the scene of the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the evidence of the eyewitness was unreliable and that the discovery of the knife was not sufficient to prove that the accused had committed the murder. The Court also found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had a motive to kill Gangubai.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eyewitness was reliable. 2. Whether the discovery of the knife was sufficient to prove that the accused had committed the murder. 3. Whether the prosecution had proved that the accused had a motive to kill Gangubai.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court found that the evidence of the eyewitness was unreliable because he had not been able to explain how he was able to see the accused stabbing Gangubai in the darkness. 2. The High Court found that the discovery of the knife was not sufficient to prove that the accused had committed the murder because the knife was not stained with human blood. 3. The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had a motive to kill Gangubai because there was no evidence that he had an illicit relationship with her.
Final Decision: The High Court acquitted the accused of murder.
R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---After the hearing of this appeal was over on 18th of October, 1979 we dictated an order allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused who had been convicted in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1975 of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge of Satara. We had mentioned that we would given reasons later. Accordingly we are giving the reasons in this judgment.
2. In Sessions Case No. 19 of 1975, tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Satara, the appellant in this appeal, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", was prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused had committed the murder of one Gangubai, wife of Dagdu Chougule, by inflicting knife injuries on her person on the night of 25th of October, 1974. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for the life by his judgment and order dated 29th of September, 1975.
3. The prosection case in the Court below as that on 25th of October 1974 which was the Dassera day the murder of Gangubai was committed. Before we narrate other facts constituting the prosecution case it would be appropriate to know something about the village in which this offence took place and the local which provided the backdrop to the movements of the various persons involved in this case. Shankar Shivram Bhoj examined as P.W. 1 in the Court below, was at the relevant time working as a Circle Inspector of Karad Division within which the village Vithalwadi is included. He has, on a requisition made by the police, drawn a sketch of the area in Vithal wadi which is called Dhangarwada. The sketch is at Exh. 7 and it shows that there is in the village Vithalwadi a hillock on the northern side of which there are several houses which are inhabited essentially by Dhangars who are related to each other. On the solution side of the hillock in situated the house of the accused which is 1 1/2 furlong away from Dhangarwada. Dhangarwada which, as we have already mentioned above, is situated on the northern side of the hillock and consists of among others four houses. The scene of offence is in the house of Gangubai Dagdu Chougule which itself consists of three apartments. The innermost apartment is a kitchen, the middle apartment is an oti and the outermost apartment is gotha. On the western side of this house of Gangubai there are two houses one of Nau Ramu Chougule and other of Bhagu Chougule in that order. There is a distance of 50 feet between these three houses. On the eastern side of the house of Gangubai at a distance of 112 feet is the house of Janu Ramu Chougule. If there are other houses in this area they have not been shown in the sketch. The four houses have been specifically shown by the Circle Inspector because the inmates of these four houses which are situated on the northern side of the hillock are not connected with each other by any regular road but are accessible to each other by a trodden path. Though Dhangerwada is situated near the village and probably forms part of the village Vithalwadi, the living conditions of the persons in the four houses are almost primitive because at night even lanterns were not available in three houses. It is needless to say that there is no other source of illumination for the area as such. It has also coma in the evidence of the Circle Inspector that the Koyananagar Police Station is at a distance of 7 miles from Vithalwadi. If one has to reach Koynanagar from Vithalwadi one has to walk a distance of about 3 miles to a village called Snirale from where a bus can be taken to Koynanagar. From other evidence available we notice that Karad, which is a taluka place in Satara District, is 29 miles away from Vithalwadi.
4. Gangubai, the wife of Dagdu Chougule, is a resident of village Vithalwadi and occupies a house in Dhangarwada. Her
