Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra through PSO Neknoor - Appellant
Versus
Limbaji s/o Kashinath Survase and Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 1999 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 1999
Decided On : 03-08-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. S.J. Salgare
For the Respondents: Mr. S.S. Choudhari and V.M. Chate, Mr. C.K. Shinde
The testimony of eyewitnesses, when consistent and reliable, can be sufficient to convict an accused person, even in the absence of corroborating evidence.
Headnote:
The court convicted the accused for the murder of Mahavir and the attempted murder of Sumant and Vashisht. The court found that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Mahavir and that they had assaulted Sumant and Vashisht in an attempt to kill them as well. The court relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses Sumant and Vashisht, as well as circumstantial evidence such as the recovery of weapons and bloodstained clothing at the scene of the crime. The court rejected the defense of alibi raised by one of the accused, finding that it was not supported by the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
Mahavir, a political leader, was murdered by a group of assailants while returning to his village on a motorcycle with two companions, Sumant and Vashisht. Sumant and Vashisht were also injured in the attack. The police arrested 14 suspects, but the trial court acquitted all of them, citing inconsistencies in the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the lack of corroborating evidence. The state appealed the acquittals, and the revision petitioner, a brother of the deceased, filed a revision petition challenging the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused. The court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, Sumant and Vashisht, was consistent and reliable, and that it was corroborated by circumstantial evidence such as the recovery of weapons and bloodstained clothing at the scene of the crime. The court also rejected the defense of alibi raised by one of the accused, finding that it was not supported by the evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused. 2. Whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses was consistent and reliable. 3. Whether the circumstantial evidence corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses. 4. Whether the defense of alibi raised by one of the accused was supported by the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused. The court found that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, Sumant and Vashisht, was consistent and reliable, and that it was corroborated by circumstantial evidence such as the recovery of weapons and bloodstained clothing at the scene of the crime. 2. The court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, Sumant and Vashisht, was consistent and reliable. The court noted that the eyewitnesses had given detailed accounts of the incident, and that their testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons and bloodstained clothing at the scene of the crime. 3. The court held that the circumstantial evidence corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The court noted that the weapons and bloodstained clothing recovered at the scene of the crime were consistent with the testimony of the eyewitnesses. 4. The court held that the defense of alibi raised by one of the accused was not supported by the evidence. The court noted that the accused had not provided any evidence to support his alibi, and that his testimony was contradicted by the testimony of other witnesses.
Final Decision: The court convicted the accused for the murder of Mahavir and the attempted murder of Sumant and Vashisht. The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for the murder of Mahavir and to concurrent terms of imprisonment for the attempted murder of Sumant and Vashisht.
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
The judgment and order of acquittal of respondents, accused given in Sessions Court No. 53/1995 which was pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed is challenged both in appeal and in revision. The accused were tried for offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 149, 148 etc. of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and also for offence of wrongful restraint etc. A brother of deceased has filed the revision. Both the sides are heard.
2. During the course of arguments, the death certificates in respect of accused No. 1 -Limbaji Kashinath Survase, accused No. 8 - Gorakh Raosaheb Wagh and accused No. 14 -Udhav Limbaji Survase came to be filed and this fact is not disputed. The appeal needs to be disposed of as abated as against these three accused persons. But, entire evidence needs to be considered as the charge was for offences punishable under sections 302, 307 r/w. 149 of IPC.
3. The facts leading to the institution of the two proceedings can be stated in brief as under :-
There were two political groups in village Kumbhari. The election to Village Panchayat held in the year 1994 was separately contested by these two groups by forming two panels. The Village Panchayat consist of seven members. It is contended that the panel of accused No. 14 - Udhav won three seats and the panel of deceased Mahavir won four seats. After the election, the two sides came together and they unanimously chose Udhav, accused No. 14, as their Sarpanch.
4. The dispute again started between two groups when the question of allotment of Gharkuls, small houses to be constructed for implementation of Government scheme through Village Panchayat arose. It is the case of the prosecution that Udhav wanted to allot Gharkuls to persons of his side, but Mahavir was asking to see that poor persons get Gharkuls. As Udhav was not ready to listen, Mahavir asked his four members to resign so that the Village Panchayat is dissolved. It is contended that the resignations were not accepted by the authority and they were returned. On the contrary, it is the case of defence that it was not an attempt to dissolve the Village Panchayat, but it was an attempt to move no confidence motion by calling special meeting, but the group of Mahavir could not succeed in calling such meeting.
5. On 31.8.1994 first informant Sumant (PW 6), the injured eye witness Vashisht (PW 10) and deceased Mahavir went on motorcycle of Sumant to Beed to meet Member of Legislative Assembly ('MLA' for short) Shri. Navale in connection with aforesaid dispute. They could not met MLA on that day and they stayed back in Beed till 1.9.1994. On 1.9.1994 Mahavir and Sumant met MLA and then all the three started to return back to Kumbhari on the same motorcycle (bearing No. MXR-6620). They took 2 to 3 brief halts on the way. At the relevant time, Sumant was riding the motorcycle. They reached the spot of offence at 9.30 p.m. On this spot, the road virtually goes through the river and on both the sides of banks of river, there is slope and at the relevant time there was mud in the river. Sumant slowed down the speed due to these circumstances at this point.
6. As soon as the motorcycle entered the bed of river, all the accused persons, 14 in number, emerged from the side of bushes which were present on the bank of river and they were all armed with weapons like swords, scythes (sickles), choppers and sticks. Some were holding torches. The first blow of sword was given by accused No. 14 -Udhav on the neck of Mahavir from backside. Due to this blow all the three persons on the motorcycle fell with the motorcycle. Then other accused started assaulting all the three persons, who were present on the motorcycle with aforesaid weapons. When the assault was made, they used the torch light. When the first informant sustained a blow of stick on his leg, he somehow escaped and ran away. But he witnessed the incident from the bushes where he was hiding
