Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.C. Pratap R.D. Tulpule, JJ.
Shahaji Dattu Patil.... Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 1981, decided on 11-2-1982.
Advocates appeared :
Shamrao G. Samant, for appellant.
N.M. Kachare, P.P., for respondent.
MURDER - CRIMINAL LAW - Penal Code, Section 302, Section 34 - The court discussed the charges against the accused under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and the alternative charges under section 323 and section 352 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. The court acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code but convicted them for the alternative charges under section 352 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. Accused No. 1 was convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The court found the testimony of the purported eye-witnesses to be extremely unreliable and unsafe to base any conviction of accused No. 1. The court also highlighted the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and the lack of corroboration, leading to the conclusion that there was grave and serious doubt about the involvement of the accused in the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with the murder of Rama Govinda Patil. The prosecution alleged that the accused chased and attacked Rama, resulting in his death. The defense of the accused was one of total denial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the purported eye-witnesses to be extremely unreliable and unsafe to base any conviction of accused No. 1. The court also highlighted the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and the lack of corroboration, leading to the conclusion that there was grave and serious doubt about the involvement of the accused in the crime.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the testimony of the purported eye-witnesses and the lack of corroboration in the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unreliable testimony of the witnesses, the inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements, and the lack of corroboration, leading to grave and serious doubt about the involvement of the accused in the crime.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against accused No. 1, and acquitted him of the charge of murder. The accused was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
2. Case of the prosecution, briefly stated, has been that relations between the deceased Rama Govinda Patil and his brother Hindurao Govinda Patil and the accused were strained. On the morning of 11th February, 1980, at about o'clock Rama was returning from his northern field and was going homewards southwards by the village road known a Chinchawade road. That very time, the original three accused suddenly emerged from being some house and came in front of Rama. Rama started running towards the east, i.e. towards the field of one Tanubai. The accused chased him. He was caught in the field. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 gave stick blows on Rama, but Rama averted the same by catching the sticks by raising his hands. At that moment accused No. 1 Shahaji gave a knife blow just below the left armpit of Rama. Rama shouted and fell down. The accused immediately ran away with their weapons. This incident, so proceeds the prosecution case, was actually witnessed by Rama's brother Hindurao who also per chance happened to be near about the scene at that time. According to the prosecution, the incident was also witnessed by three other persons viz., Shripati, Sakharam (P.W. 3) Shripathi Dashrath (P.W. 4) and Vithabai Dattu (P.W. 6), the latter being the sister Rama. All these four persons then gathered near the dead body and were there for about an hour. A few other persons also are alleged to have come there, witnessed the deadbody and left. One amongst these persons asked as to why police complaint was not being filed. It was then that P.W. 2 Hindurao, the brother of Rama, went for the purpose of filing police complaint. He went by bus to the Police Station which was at a distance of about sixteen Kilometres. A complaint was lodged with the Karvir Police Station at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. An offence of murder was registered against the accused persons. The police arrived at the scene of offence soon thereafter. Statements of several person were recorded on the same day. On the next day, statements of some other persons were also recorded. After the requisite panchnamas and after completion of investigation, all the three certain accused were made to stand their trial on the charges indicated above.
3. Defence of the accused was o
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
