Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
Suraj Shrikrushna Sonowane - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2017
Decided On : 22-12-2017
For the Petitioner:R.M. Daruwala, Advocate
For the Respondents: S.V. Kolhe, Addl. Public Prosecutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts, and the credibility of witness testimonies and evidence is crucial in reaching a decision.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 304(I) - [MURDER] - [IPC 304(I)] - The court evaluated the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions, omissions, and delayed statements of witnesses. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code was quashed and set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death. The evidence presented included witness testimonies, post mortem report, and statements of the accused and witnesses. The trial judge convicted the appellant under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was not convincing, as it was full of contradictions, omissions, and delayed statements of witnesses. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the reliability of evidence, and the delay in recording statements of material witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor discrepancies and variations in witness testimonies do not necessarily make their testimony infirm. However, in this case, the contradictions, omissions, and delayed statements cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, leading to the failure to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code was quashed and set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other crime.
P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
1. This appeal is filed against judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2015, vide which appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. Appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Briefly, case of prosecution can be stated as under :-
On 22nd June, 2013, PW 1 Kalim Gulab Shah, brother of deceased Jarbin Gulab Shah, lodged report, Exh.42, contending that on that day at 10 a.m. deceased was going towards bus stop of village Dighi on the motorcycle of one Shrikrishna Marbate when appellant met and quarrel took place between them on transaction of sale of cotton, during the course of which deceased had given 2-3 slaps to appellant. It is further case of prosecution that deceased thereafter along with PW 5 Raju Ramuji Sidam while was proceeding on the motorcycle, appellant met and on intercepting them threw chilly powder on their person due to which Raju Sidam left the company of deceased, who after alighting from the motorcycle while was cleaning chilly powder from his face was given a kick blow by appellant due to which he fell down on the ground and was thereafter assaulted on his head by appellant by means of big stone causing his death.
3. PW 1 Kalim Shah, Complainant therefore lodged his report which was received by PW 10 ASI, Ananda Bhagat at 8 p.m. and on the basis of same report offence vide Crime No. 95 of 2013 was registered, which was further investigated by one P.I., Bawiskar (not examined) and thereafter by PW 11 Sugat Nathrao Pundge, PSI who had recorded statement of witnesses on 7th October, 2013, 8th October, 2013, 10th October, 2013 and 24th October, 2013. Further investigation was carried out by PW 12 Chandrashekhar Panjabrao Kadu, API who during the course of investigation, apprehended appellant from Ahemadabad and after bringing at Babhulgaon Police Station, on 18th April, 2014 effected his arrest under arrest panchanama Exh.17 and sent appellant to Medical Officer for collecting his blood sample which was seized under seizure panchanama, Exh.19. On 20th April, 2015, he recorded statements of PW 6 Kaushal Dhonduji Bawane, PW 9 Kamala Pandit Munjewar, PW 13 Mangesh Rajendra Chaudhari and on 6th May, 2015 recorded statements of PW 7 Pandit Balkrushna Munjewar and also got recorded statements of PW Mangesh Chaudhari, PW 4 Naresh Udhaorao Raut and PW Kamala Munjewar under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on completion of investigation filed charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Babhulgaon. In the course of time, case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
4. Charge, Exh.3 was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code to which he denied and claimed to be tried. The defence of appellant is of total denial and false implication.
It is his case that at the time of incident, on some transaction he was to receive some amount from deceased and for that reason alone he is falsely implicated in this case. Appellant, however, has not examined any witness in support of his case.
5. To establish the Charge framed, prosecution in all examined fourteen witnesses and commenced its evidence on examining PW 1 Kalim Gulab Shah, brother of the deceased who lodged report, Exh.42, PW 2 Jagdish Sureshrao Wadafale, spot panch who has established spot panchanama, Exh.48 and seizure panchanama of stone, Exh.49, PW 3 Ganesh Ganpat Bagade on the incident of earlier assault by appellant on deceased, PW 4 Naresh Uddaorao Raut, PW 5 Raju Ramuji Sidam on the case of prosecution of appellant throwing chilly powder on deceased prior to assault, PW 6 Kaushal Dhonduji Bawane, the grocery shop owner, PW 7 Pa
