High Court of Judicature at Bombay
P.V. HARDAS & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale & Another
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2011
Decided On : 02-12-2014
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to the offence of murder under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the importance of reliable evidence and the need for corroboration in cases relying on a single eyewitness account.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found murdered, and the prosecution relied on the testimony of a single eyewitness, PW 11, and medical evidence. The appellants were convicted based on this evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the sole eyewitness was unreliable due to uncertainties and belated recording of the statement. It also noted the lack of corroboration and the failure to establish a clear connection between the seized weapons and the injuries on the deceased.
Issues: Reliability of the eyewitness testimony, need for corroboration, and connection between seized weapons and injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of unimpeachable evidence in proving guilt, the need for corroboration in cases relying on a single eyewitness, and the requirement to establish a clear connection between seized weapons and the injuries caused.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellants were quashed and set aside, and they were acquitted of the offence. The court ordered the refund of any paid fines and the immediate release of the appellants from jail.
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
1. The appellants-original accused nos. 1 and 2 who stand convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and who are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine suffer R.I. for 1 year by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 337 of 2008, by this appeal question the correctness of their conviction and sentence.
Facts as necessary for decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:-
2. PW 16 Satish Shankarrao Patil, Police Inspector, attached to the Haveli Police Station was on duty on 17th January 2008. PI Satish was informed by Head Constable Modak on telephone that there was a murder opposite Dnyanganga Society, Vadgaon-Budruk, Near Khandoba Mandir in the field of one Balasaheb Jadhav. PI Satish therefore, went to the spot and noticed a dead body which was identified by the brother of the deceased who was present at the spot to be of Vijay Suryavanshi. An inquest panchanama at Exhibit 97 was recorded in the presence of panchas. The dead body was thereafter sent for post mortem. A spot panchanama at Exhibit 71 was recorded in the presence of the panchas. Samples of simple mud, blood stained mud, hairs and a piece of tile were seized from the spot. After the post mortem, clothes of the deceased were seized as per panchanama at Exhibit 98. PW 16 Satish Shankarrao Patil thereafter undertook the investigation. Statements of PW 3 Kantiram alias Chandrakant Vithoba Jadhav at Exhibit 99, that of PW 4 Prakash Gulab Pawar at Exhibit 100 came to be recorded. On 18.1.2008 statements of other witnesses were recorded. Statement of one Ananta Subhash Shigwan came to be recorded by PI Satish who disclosed names of the accused to have committed the crime. This witness expired before he could be examined. On 19.1.2008 statement of PW 13 Ashok Baburao Shewale who was an eye witness came to be recorded. The seized articles were sent for Chemical Analysis along with constable Surdikar under cover of letter dated 21.1.2008 which is at Exhibit 102. On 21.1.2008 in pursuance of the report of PSI Bajirao Patil producing the accused which is at Exhibit 103, the accused came to be arrested vide arrest panchanama at Exhibit 104 to 108. On 23.1.2008 accused no. 1 was interrogated and thereafter on 26.1.2008 statement of accused no. 1 was recorded in presence of the panchas. Accused no. 1 agreed to show the place where the chopper being one of the articles in crime, was hidden. A statement to this effect was recorded at Exhibit 79. Accordingly, PW 16 PI. Satish along with panchas went towards Sinhagad College at the spot where the chopper was kept underneath a shrub by accused no. 1 which came to be seized vide panchanama at Exhibit 80. On 26.1.2008 accused no. 2 agreed to produce the sickle. A statement to that effect was recorded to that which is at Exhibit 85. Accordingly, the sickle was recovered in presence of panchas from the backside of Sinhagad College and the seizure panchanama to that effect at Exhibit 86 was recorded.
3. Dr Ajay Aniruddha Taware PW 15 Medical Officer attached to the Sasoon Hospital, Pune on 17.1.2008 conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Vijay. Dr. Ajay noticed the following seven external injuries:-
1. Chop wound over left forehead vertically oblique 7 x 2 cm x bone deep with fracture.
2. Multiple intermingled chop wounds from vertically left fronto parieto occipital region upto angle of left mandible, 4 cm below left ear, antero posteriorly from nose and left angle of mouth upto left occipital region, in area of 23 x 15 cm x bone muscle brain deep involving left ear, left eye which are sharply cut, margins clean cut.
3. Incised wound over left shoulder, superiorly horizontal 6 x 2 cm x muscle deep.
4. Chop wound over right ring finger over first digit with partial traumatic amputation of finger.
5. Chop wound of over left index finger, vertica
State of Orissa vs. Brahmananda Nanda
Deendayal vs. Rajkumar @ Raju and Others
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and Another vs. State of Maharashtra
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.