Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR
V.M. Deshpande, J.
Tilakchand - Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2006
Decided On : 04-07-2019
A.Y. Sharma, Adv., V.P. Gangane, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of corroborative evidence, and the principle of extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 307 and Section 448 - [POISONOUS SUBSTANCE] - [Criminal Law] - [Section 307, Section 448, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the delay in lodging the FIR, the recovery of poisonous substance, and the presence of light at the time of the incident. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants administered a poisonous substance to the victims, resulting in their hospitalization. The appellants were convicted under Section 307 and Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of corroboration in the evidence, and the questionable recovery of the poisonous substance led the court to conclude that the benefit of doubt should be extended in favor of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in lodging the FIR, the presence of light at the time of the incident, the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, and the recovery of the poisonous substance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. The court also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the need to explain delays in lodging FIRs. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence and the principle of extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGMENT :
V.M. Deshpande, J.
Appellants, who are original accused nos.1 and 2, are challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia dated 30.08.2006 in Sessions Trial No.73/2005. By the said, the Court below convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. They are also convicted for the offence under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the IPC and on that count, they were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 25 days.
2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is as under:
(a) On 05.09.2005, when Umakant Kashiramji Sarode, a Police Sub Inspector (PSI) was present in Police Station, Gondia (Rural), at that time, Dulichand Lilhare (PW1) came and lodged his oral report (Exh.-16). It was noted down as per the say of Dulichand. On the basis of oral report, PSI Sarode registered a crime against the appellants and one Laxmichand vide Crime No. 157/2005 for an offence punishable under Sections 448, 307 read with Section 44 of the IPC. The printed FIR is at Exh.-17.
(b) As per the oral report dated 05.09.2005, Retlal Ramchandra Lilhare (PW2) is son of complainant's elder brother. He stays in the house of his mother in law along with his family. FIR further recites that about two years ago when the complainant was working as watchman in nursery of Gram Panchayat, that time a person from Sioni committed theft of bamboo. Former Sarpancha Yele caught the said person and imposed fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. Similarly, one Mohan also committed theft of Bambu from the nursery. The FIR states that owing to the matter, both the appellants quarreled with him and threatened him that they will cut him like a goat. According to the FIR, since then the families are not on talking term. It is also stated in the FIR that on 31.08.2005, there was a public auction of goat in the village. At that time, the appellants came under the influence of liquor and caught hold of collar of Madhaorao Thakare. That time, Retlal (PW2) intervened in the matter. At that time, accused no.1 gave threat to him and left the place.
(c) FIR further states that on 04.09.2005 in the night when Retlal (PW2) and his son Mannulal (PW3) were sleeping along with their families, appellants and Laxmichand came and they administered some poisonous substance to both of them.
(d) After registration of offence, the investigating officer commenced the investigation. He went to Gondia hospital where Retlal and Mannulal were admitted. He obtained medical certificate from Dr. Agrawal (PW8). He also wrote a letter to the Executive Magistrate for recording dying declaration of the persons admitted. The Executive Magistrate, Gondia recorded dying declaration of both the persons in Gondia Hospital. He, thereafter, recorded statements of Retlal and Mannulal. He also visited the spot of the incident and prepared spot panchanama (Exh.-30). He also seized one bed-sheet under seizure panchanama (Exh.- 31). He then arrested the accused persons.
(e) During the course of investigation, according to the evidence of the investigating officer, on 08.09.2005, accused no.1-appellant gave his disclosure statement and agreed to show the place where he concealed polythene bag containing poison. Admissible portion of memorandum statement is at Exh.-27 and recovery panchanama is at Exh.- 28. He also seized clothes of the accused persons. He sent muddemal articles to Chemical Analyser (CA) under requisition (Exh.-46). CA report (Exh.-47) is available on record. On completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet in the Court of learned Magistrate.
(f) Learned Magistrate, in whose Court the charge-sheet was filed, found that the offence is exclusive
