Back
2011 ALLMR (Cri) 2474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
A.H. JOSHI & U.V. BAKRE, JJ.
Manik son of Sitaram Jibhkate & Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1997
Decided on: 12th July, 2011.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 46-Arrest-An act of arrest and dealing with accused in accordance with law-A matter of powers and privileges of police-Once arrest turns out to be without recording it-It becomes an arrest for purpose of liabilities of officers effecting same.-An act of arrest and dealing with the accused in accordance with law would always be a matter of powers and privileges of the police. Once the arrest turns out to be without recording it, it becomes an arrest for the purposes of liabilities of officers effecting the same.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45-Expert opinion Evidentiary value of-DNA Test-Expert opinion as to results of DNA Test-Ultimately an opinion-Not have value of conclusive proof as to contents thereof.-It is well settled that the expert opinion as to results of DNA test is ultimately an opinion, and does not have the value of a conclusive proof as to contents thereof.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101 and 106-Burden of proof-Criminal trial-Accused stepped into witnessbox-Undertaken risk to offer themselves for cross-examination-Accused always have a very limited burden to discharge-Even when accused suffer limited responsibility of answering burden of Section 106 of Act.
The provided document discusses the importance and reliability of identification procedures in criminal cases. It emphasizes the significance of identification parades and the necessity for proper procedures to establish the identity of accused persons. The document notes that identification should be based on clear and credible evidence, and that the involvement of accused persons in the identification process must be established through proper conduct and adherence to legal standards. It also highlights that identification evidence must be scrutinized carefully to ensure its trustworthiness, especially when the identification is not made through individual, isolated acts but as part of collective proceedings. Overall, the document underscores that identification is a crucial aspect of proof in criminal law, but it must be conducted and evaluated with due diligence to be considered reliable.
Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1997 is preferred by State. All the respondents were tried in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1996 for various offences. State is aggrieved due to the acquittal of various accused persons in relation to different charges. The acquittal of Accused Nos. 8 and 9 is not challenged.
Remaining five appeals are preferred by different accused persons who are aggrieved by conviction and sentence ordered against them.
2. The accused were charged for intentionally and knowingly causing custodial homicidal death of Shama alias Kalia son of Nanu Uke between 15 and 22nd December, 1995 at Police Station Gondia City, Gondia. Some amongst them were charged for extortion of confession for commission of offence and for recovery of stolen property from [1] deceased Shama alias Kalya, [2] Smt. Amrutabai, wife of deceased, [3] Smt. Manjulabai, mother of deceased, [4] Smt. Tarsanbai, mother-in-law of deceased, [5] Smt. Vimal Sahare, and [6] Ku. Rekha Sahare.
All accused were charged for screening the evidence of offence committed by Accused Nos. 1 to 7. The analysis of charge is as follows:-
Sr. No. Accused number and his name Sections as to offence
a. Accused No.1 – Manik 1. 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Accused No.2 – Ravindra, Code.
Accused No.3 – Ravindra, 2. 330 and 331 read with Section 34 of Accused No.4 – Manohar, Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.5 – Hansraj, 3. 342,343,348 read with Section 34 of Accused No.6 – Vishnu, Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.7 – Vishwanah, 4. 385 and 387 read with Section 34 of Accused No.8 – Dilip, Indian Penal Code.
5. 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
6. 193 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
7. 203 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
8. 218 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
b. Accused No.1 – Manik, 1. 354 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Accused No.2 – Ravindra, Code.
Accused No.2 – Ravindra,
Accused No.3 – Manohar,
Accused No.4 – Hansraj,
c. Accused No.1 – Manik, 1. First Part of Section 201 read with Accused No.2 – Ravindra, Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.2 – Ravindra, 2. 202 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Accused No.3 – Manohar, Code.
Accused No.4 – Hansraj,
Accused No.5 – Vishnu,
Accused No.6 – Vishwanath,
Accused No.7 – Dilip,
Accused No.8 – Sudhir,
Rambhau Kayarkar,
and Accused No.9 – Ganesh
Raghuji Tukar
3. For handy information, the conviction and sentence as ordered by Sessions Court is as follows:-
Accus Name Provision under which Sentence awarded
-ed no. convicted/acquitted.
1. Manik Jibhkate, PSI. Conviction : [a] 7 years RI, fine of
[a] 304-II r/w 34 of IPC. Rs.4000/- each.
[b] 331 r/w 34, IPC. [b] 3 years RI, fine of
[c] 330,348,387 r/w 34, IPC. Rs.1000/-each.
[d] 201, 218 r/w 34, IPC. [c] I years RI, Rs.1000/fine.
Acquittal-302,354 r/w.
34, IPC. [d] 1 year RI, Rs.1.000/fine.
2. Ravindra Agalave, Conviction - Same as for
Police Constable, B. Accused No.1.
No.915 Acquittal-302.354 r/w. Same as for Accused No.1.
34.IPC.
3. Manohar Bawankar, Conviction - [a] 3 years RI, Rs.1000
Police Constable, [a] 331 r/w 34, IPC. fine each.
B.No409. [b] 201, 218, r/w 34, IPC. [b] 1 year RI, Rs.1000/-
[c] 330, 348, 387 r/w 34, fine.
IPC.
[d] 202 r/w 34, IPC. [c] –do-
Acquittal-302,354 r/w.34, [d] 3 months RI, Rs.500/-
IPC. fine each.
4. Hansraj Yaidya, Conviction - Same as for Same as for
Police Constable Accused No.1. Accused No.1.
B.No.1301. Acquittal-302,354 r/w.34,
IPC.
5. Vishnu Malevar, Conviction - Same as for Same as for Accused No.3.
Police Constable Accused No.3.
B. No. 735. Acquittal-302,354 r/w.34,
IPC.
6. Yishwanath Gawande, Conviction - [a] 1 year RI Rs. 1000/-
Police Constable [a] 201,218, r/w 34 of IPC fine.
B.No.997. [b] 202 r/w 34 of IPC. [b] 3 months RI, Rs.500/-
Acquittal-302,354 r/w.34, fine each.
IPC.
7. Dilip Dongre, Conviction - Same as for Same as for Accused No.6.
Police Constable Accused No.6.
B.No.91. Acquittal-302,354 r/w.34,
IPC
SupremeToday
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
