Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1511
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.K. Tahilramani and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Vs.
Surendra Ramchandra Mestri - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 1995
Decided On : 03.08.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : A.S. Shitole, A.P.P.
For Respondent:B.P. Jakhade, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which was met by the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Murder - IPC Section 302 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Dilip by the respondent, who assaulted him with a knife in the court-yard of his house. The prosecution presented evidence from eyewitnesses, medical reports, and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses, supported by medical and circumstantial evidence, was overwhelming and proved the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected the Trial Court's acquittal and convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine.
Issues: The main issue was the discrepancy in the evidence relating to the actual spot of the incident, which the Trial Court used to acquit the respondent. The court found this discrepancy to be insignificant and not sufficient to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the overwhelming evidence of eyewitnesses, supported by medical and circumstantial evidence, which proved the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The court also criticized the Trial Court's approach as neither 'possible' nor 'reasonable' and found it to be perverse.
Final Decision: The Appeal was allowed, the Trial Court's acquittal was quashed, and the respondent was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine.
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.
1. This Appeal is preferred by the State challenging acquittal of the Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, vide his Judgment and Order dated 18th May, 1994 in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1993.
2. Brief facts of the Appeal are stated as follows :-
PW-5 Balkrishna is the father of deceased Dilip. As Dilip has misbehaved with Sarita, the daughter of one Eknath Mestri, the Respondent, who belongs to Mestri family, was annoyed with Dilip. Hence, as per prosecution case, on 9th March, 1993, at about 9:15 pm, while Dilip was attending to his pet dogs in the court-yard of his house, Respondent assaulted him with knife. In the said assault, he inflicted about four stab blows on the vital part of the body of Dilip. When Dilip shouted for help, his father PW-5 Balkrishna, who was sitting in the ota (varandah) of his house, and his grand-mother PW-6 Kashibai, who was in the kitchen of the house, rushed to his help and saw the Respondent inflicting stab blows on him. PW-5 Balkrishna pushed away Respondent and then Respondent ran away from the spot with weapon of assault. The persons residing nearby viz. PW-8 Uday Sawant and PW-10 Sadanand Mhaskar also reached there.
3. Co-incidentally, at that time, PW-11 PSI Vijay Band had also come to the said locality in connection with Bandobast of Holi festival. On hearing the shouts and commotions, he also came to the spot and found Dilip lying in injured and unconscious condition on the ota of the house. PW-11 PSI Band put Dilip in his Jeep. Dilip's father PW-5 Balkrishna also accompanied Dilip. They were taken to Malvan Municipal Hospital, where Dilip was declared dead. From the hospital, PW-5 Balkrishna came to the Police Station, where his complaint came to be recorded by PW-13 PSI Laxman Sariputra. On his complaint (Exhibit-34), C.R. No. 48 of 1993 was registered against the Respondent. After the Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-18), body was sent for autopsy. The Postmortem Report (Exhibit-20) disclosed the cause of death as "hemorrhagic shock due to injuries to lungs, heart and liver".
4. On the next day, PW-13 PSI Sariputra went to the spot of incident and drew Scene of Offence Panchanama (Exhibit-25). From the spot, he collected blood stained towel and simple and blood mixed soil. On the same day, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and took search of the Respondent. He was found concealing himself in the forest of Aangnewadi. PSI Sariputra called two Panchas and arrested the Respondent under Panchanama (Exhibit-31). The blood stained clothes on the person of the Respondent were seized under the said Panchanama. On 12th March, 1993, Respondent was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malvan and his police custody was obtained.
5. During custodial interrogation of the Respondent, on 13th March, 1993, Respondent expressed his willingness to produce the knife, which was used in the commission of the offence. His statement was reduced to Memorandum Panchanama (Exhibit-27). Thereafter, Respondent guided the Panch PW-2 Bhalchandra Kolambkar and PW-13 PSI Sariputre to Aangnewadi and produced the knife, which was concealed underneath the stone below the tree. The said knife (Article No. 9) came to be seized under Panchanama (Exhibit-27A) on the spot. PSI Sariputre then sent all seized muddemal articles to Chemical Analyzer vide his requisition letter (Exhibit-47). PW-12 Police Constable Suryaji Naik carried those articles to Chemical Analyzer on 16th March, 1993. The C.A. Reports are produced in the case, along with Charge-Sheet, vide Exhibits "21 to 23". Further to completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet is filed in the Court.
6. On committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the Trial Court framed charge against the Respondent vide Exhibit-1. The Respondent pleaded not guilt to the charge and claimed trial.
7. In support of its case, prosecution examined in a
