Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
B.P. Dharmadhikari, V.M. Deshpande, JJ.
Pralhad s/o Gunwant Madhar & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra through its P.S.O. Badnera, Tq. and District Amravati - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 354 of 2015
Decided On : 10-04-2017
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 and Section 506(ii) - [MURDER] - [Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 506(ii)] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellants being entitled to the benefit of doubt. The judgment of conviction was quashed and set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, a husband and wife, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case revolved around the death of the first informant's father, with allegations of assault and threats made by the appellants. The trial court found the appellants guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-evaluated the evidence and found that false implication at the behest of the sole eye witness, who was an interested witness, could not be ruled out. It raised doubts about the witness's ability to witness the incident in darkness and noted the absence of independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellants being entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the sole eye witness, the presence of independent witnesses, and the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the evidence of interested witnesses with caution and highlighted the need for corroboration and consistency in the prosecution's case. It also underscored the duty of the court to draw the accused's attention to inculpatory material and the adverse effect of non-compliance with this duty on the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction was quashed and set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The bail bonds possessed by Appellant No.2 were cancelled, and Appellant No.1 was ordered to be set free immediately if his custody was not required by the State in any other matter.
V.M. Deshpande, J.
The appellants who are husband and wife are before this Court since they are convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 09-09-2015 in Sessions Trial No.101 of 2011. By the said judgment both of them are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are directed to suffer imprisonment for life and both of them are directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo further one year of sentence. Appellant no.1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) and on that count was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days.
2. While admitting the appeal on 14-10-2015 this Court released appellant no.2 on bail.
3. The prosecution case as it was unfolded during the course of trial is narrated herein under :
4. (PW6) Sarjerao Babar who was posted at Rajapeth Police Station was given charge of Badnera Police Station as incharge Police Station Officer from December, 2010 to January, 2011.
On 29-12-2010 (PW1) Vimal Ravi Ramteke lodged a report against the appellants at Police Station Badnera. (PW6) Sarjerao Babar reduced the same into writing as per her say. It was read over to her and thereafter she put her signature on the same. It was also signed by (PW6) Sarjerao Babar. The oral report so lodged by (PW1) Vimal Ramteke is available on record at Exhibit--18.
As per the oral report, the father of the first informant by name Pralhad Jairam Borkar (deceased) was doing kerosene business as a retailer at KawathaBahale, Taluka Bhatkuli, District Amravati. As per the First Information Report appellant no.1 Dr. Pralhad Gunwant Madhar who is known to deceased and the first informant by giving promise to the deceased in the year 2005 that he will arrange for allotment of dealership from the reserved quota obtained Rs. 7 Lacs. The First Information Report further states that Pralhad Borkar used to demand the amount back from appellant no.1 on that the appellant no.1 used to tell the deceased that he has practiced black magic on his wife (appellant no.2) and therefore only after the her recovery from bad health the amount will be returned else the dealership work will be done.
The First Information Report further states that on 18-12-2010 she and her parents were assaulted. On that the report was lodged. On 28-12-2010 the deceased gave complaint against the appellants in the office of the Police Commissioner, Amravati.
The First Information Report further proceeds that on 29-12-2010 at 8.30 in the morning appellant no.1 came in front of the informant’s house. That time the first informant was standing on the water tap for filling the water pots. That time appellant no.2 was also present. Appellant no.1 was holding Dagger and that time he used abusive language and extend threats that he will kill the first informant and her father.
5. The First Information Report further states that on the said day at 7 o’clock in the night the deceased went near Zilla Parishad school for answering nature’s call. That time appellant no.1 followed him armed with the stick. Since the father was not returning, therefore, the first informant went in search of him. That time he noticed that appellant no.2 was holding the deceased and the appellant no.1 was assaulting by means of stick, at that time Bapurao Wankhare, Samadhan Ghogare and other persons were assembled there. The First Information Report further states that the deceased asked the first informant to make a phone call to the Police and informed that the appellants have assaulted on him. The First Information Report further states that thereafter she and her mother Manorama took Pralhad to the Irvin Hospital in an auto rickshaw. However, he was declared brought dead and thereafter she lodged the report.
6. Since the report was disclosing a commission of cognizable offence (PW6) Sarje
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
