Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.A. Jahagirdar M.L. Pendse, JJ.
Sadashiv Bajrang Sutar.... Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 733 of 1976, decided on 3-3-1981.
Advocate appeared :
P.S. Patankar, for appellant.
J.A. Barday, P.P., for State.
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - DISCOVERY OF WEAPON - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - MOTIVE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing Bhagwat Rangnath Salgar. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was seen with the deceased on the night of the murder and that a bloodstained Wakas (carpenter's tool) was discovered at the appellant's uncle's house pursuant to a statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was not in the village at the time of the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the identification of the appellant by witnesses who had not seen him before the murder was unreliable, that the discovery of the Wakas was not a valid discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and that the alleged extrajudicial confession to the appellant's brother was inadmissible. The court also found that the motive for the murder was inadequate.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the identification of the appellant by witnesses was reliable. 3. Whether the discovery of the Wakas was a valid discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 4. Whether the alleged extrajudicial confession to the appellant's brother was admissible. 5. Whether the motive for the murder was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the identification of the appellant by witnesses was unreliable, that the discovery of the Wakas was not a valid discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and that the alleged extrajudicial confession to the appellant's brother was inadmissible. The court also found that the motive for the murder was inadequate. 2. The court held that the identification of the appellant by witnesses who had not seen him before the murder was unreliable because the witnesses had not participated in an identification parade and had only identified the appellant in court after the murder. 3. The court held that the discovery of the Wakas was not a valid discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the appellant had not specifically stated that he had hidden the Wakas at his uncle's house and because the Wakas was not covered or concealed. 4. The court held that the alleged extrajudicial confession to the appellant's brother was inadmissible because it was not made voluntarily and was not corroborated by any other evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence and acquitted him of the murder charge.
2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution have been set out in great details in the judgment of the Court below and it is not necessary for us to refer to them again. It is sufficient to mention that both the accused and the deceased were at some time working in the same company called the Hindustan Construction Company and as a result of their employment they had moved from place to place. The last place where they had been posted was Kolkewadi in Ratnagari District. At that time the work in which they were engaged had come to and end and both of them were forced to return to their respective villages. It is alleged by the prosecution that both the accused and their wives were friendly with each other or at least on visiting terms with each other. It is suggested, but not proved convincingly, that some ill will developed between the deceased Bhagwat and the accused on account of some exchange of abuses on the basis of caste to which the accused belonged.
3. On 4th of October, 1975, according to the prosecution, the accused was seen in the village Tembhurni. It is alleged that on that day sometime in the evening Bhagwat left his house for having a cup of tea never to return again to his house. His wife Shakuntla lodged complaint to the police that her husband was missing and on the previous day the accused was seen in the village. Thereafter investigations were taken up and the accused was arrested on 5th of October, 1975. According to the prosecution, the accused led the police to the discovery of an instrument called Wakas, often used by carpenters, pursuant to a statement made under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused was last seen with Bhagwat on the night and he was seen running away from the place where the body of Bhagwat was found later. The blood found on the Wakas was of B group which was also the blood group of deceased Bhagwat. A satchel which was allegedly being carried by the accused on 4th of October, 1975 was seized from the shop of the brother of the accused. That satchel also disclosed the presence of human blood of B group. It is on these facts that the accused was put up for trial in the Sessions Case referred to above.
4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. He also pointed out that the house from which the Wakas was recovered was not his house, but the house of his uncle. He denied his presence at Tembhurni on 4th of October, 1975.
5. The prosecution examined several witnesses who can be broadly classified into three categories. One was Shankuntala, wife of the accused, who had seen the accused at Tembhurni on the evening of 4th of October, 1975. The second group of witnesses consist of persons who are alleged to have seen the accused and the deceased together in the evening of 4th of October, 1975. The third set of witnesses would be those relating to the discovery and the seizure of the articles.
6. The learned Sessions Judge was sufficiently impressed by the prosecution evidence to convict the accused of the offence with which he had been charged, namely under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For this offence, the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Another charge which was levelled against the accused was one under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Of this, however, the accused was acquitted. It is the order of the convict
AI
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
