Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, N.B. Suryawanshi, JJ.
State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Mohan @ Shivaji Kadam (patil) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 1997
Decided On : 19-12-2019
In a case involving murder and attempt to murder, the court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of an eyewitness, but the court found inconsistencies and improvements in his statement, leading to doubts about its reliability. The court also noted the absence of corroborating evidence, such as the recovery of the murder weapon or the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime. Additionally, the court found no evidence of motive or intention on the part of the accused to commit the crimes.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Pravin Sabale, was found dead with a gunshot wound to the chest. The complainant, Vivek Shinde, was also injured in the incident and sustained a gunshot wound to his left hand. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Vijay Kadam and Sharad Thorat, had committed the crimes due to a dispute over a letter written by a woman named PW-12 to the complainant. The accused were allegedly armed with a double-barrel gun and a torch, and they fired at the deceased and the complainant on a road near a village.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the testimony of the eyewitness, Vivek Shinde, was unreliable due to inconsistencies and improvements in his statement. The court also found that there was no corroborating evidence to support the eyewitness's testimony, such as the recovery of the murder weapon or the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime. Additionally, the court found no evidence of motive or intention on the part of the accused to commit the crimes.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the eyewitness, Vivek Shinde, was reliable. 2. Whether there was corroborating evidence to support the eyewitness's testimony. 3. Whether there was evidence of motive or intention on the part of the accused to commit the crimes.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the testimony of the eyewitness, Vivek Shinde, was unreliable due to inconsistencies and improvements in his statement. The court noted that the eyewitness had made several omissions and improvements in his statement, which raised doubts about its reliability. 2. The court found that there was no corroborating evidence to support the eyewitness's testimony. The court noted that the police had failed to recover the murder weapon or find any evidence of the accused's presence at the scene of the crime. 3. The court found no evidence of motive or intention on the part of the accused to commit the crimes. The court noted that the prosecution had failed to provide any evidence to show that the accused had a motive to kill the deceased or injure the complainant.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of all charges due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT
S S Shinde, J. - At the outset it is required to be noted that during course of arguments of this Criminal Appeal, much importance was laid on the evidence of PW-12 and since the incident in question is of the year 1989, and PW-12 got married subsequent to the incident and she is now residing at her matrimonial life, her identity needs to be concealed and she is referred to as "PW-12" in this judgment. The Registry is directed to maintain the record accordingly.
2. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara on 19.05.1997 in Sessions Case No. 126 of 1990, thereby acquitting the accused under Section 109, 120 (B), 302, 307, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") & 25 (i) (6A) of Arms Act, 1959.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:-
Complainant Vivek Shinde is a resident of village Beldare and at the relevant time he was taking education in Sy. B.Com., at Venutai Chavan, College, Karad. At the relevant time, he was residing with his aunt Sou. Savitri w/o Shivaji Garud in revenue colony Karad. Deceased Pravin Sabale was basically from Sabalewadi (Maldhan) and he was also taking education in 12th standard, at Yashwantrao Chavan, College, Karad, and for the said purpose, he was residing near the house of complainant''s aunt in revenue colony, Karad. Accused No. 1 Vijay Mohan Kadam is a resident of village Beldare, and at the relevant time, he was taking education in S.G.M. College, Karad. Accused No. 2 is a resident of village Beldare. PW-12 was resident of village Beldare, and at that time she was serving as a teacher in Balwadi at village Beldare. PW-12 is the cousin sister of the complainant.
4. On 08.08.1989, cousin brother of the complainant namely Rajaram Shinde had informed complainant by going to his college that the letter (Chitthi) was written by PW-12 in the name of the complainant and the said letter is in possession of Accused No. 1. Therefore, on 09.08.1989, the complainant Vivek Shinde and Vijay Patil, went to the house of Vijay Kadam at Beldare from Karad and they made inquiry with the Accused Kadam about the said letter. Thereupon, accused Vijay Kadam informed them that though the said letter was given to him by Suresh Kadam, it is not with him now. Thereafter, complainant Vivek and his friend Vijay Patil went to make inquiry with Suresh Kadam, but he was not at his house. Complainant Vivek Shinde could not meet Suresh Kadam on that day and he could not secure that letter, therefore, they returned back to Karad.
On the night of 11.08.1989, at about 11.00 pm, the complainant Vivek Shinde and his deceased friend Pravin Sabale went on bicycle to Beldare from Karad for making further inquiry in respect of that letter. They parked their bicycles at village Beldare, Karad Road near ''Khadichi Shala'' and went on foot to the house of Suresh Kadam, and made inquiry with him. Suresh Kadam was available at his house. The complainant inquired from him about the said letter. However, Suresh Kadam gave reply to the complainant stating that the complainant and deceased Pravin were mis-guided by some one. Finally, Suresh Kadam clearly stated to them that the alleged letter is not with him. There was no alternative left for the complainant except to contact Accused No. 1., therefore, in order to ascertain the fact, the complainant and deceased Pravin Sabale went to grocery shop of Accused No. 1. The complainant knocked the door of the shop of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 was present in his shop. Therefore, he opened the door of the shop. There was meeting between Accused No. 1 and the complainant in the grocery shop. In the meeting the complainant told to Accused No. 1 that, as per the information of Accused No. 1, they approached Suresh Kadam, and they made inquiry with Suresh Kadam, but Suresh kadam gave reply in the negative stating that, he does not possess any letter with him. Finally, Accused No. 1 told them that, they should
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
