SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Ravindra V.Ghuge, B.U. Debadwar, JJ.
State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Bhaskar Tukaram Kamble - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2003
Decided On : 04-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
R.D. Sanap, Advocate, S.P. Salgar, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(2)(b) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 325, 326, 147, 148, 149 - Appeal against acquittal of ten accused in a case involving the murder of the deceased Mohan and assault on his family - Trial Court acquitted all accused claiming discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies and failure to establish common object of assembly. (Paras 1-2, 3-6, 11, 62-90)

(B) Eyewitness Testimony - Related witnesses in murder cases - Law mandates careful scrutiny of related witnesses; relationship alone does not discredit their testimony. Court emphasized need for substantial corroboration where reliability of testimony is intact. (Paras 14-24)

(C) Unlawful Assembly - Criteria for establishing - The assembly must have an unlawful common objective for Section 141 of the IPC to apply. Court held that spontaneous confrontation does not amount to a pre-planned unlawful assembly. (Paras 62-68)

(D) Culpable Homicide vs. Murder - The act of throwing a stone resulting in fatal injuries must be assessed for intention. The Court ruled the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part II of IPC due to lack of premeditation. (Paras 78-88)

Table of Content
1. appeal against acquittal and case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments by prosecutor and defense. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's caution regarding eyewitness testimony. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18)
4. legal significance of circumstantial evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 25 , 26)
5. criteria for establishing unlawful assembly. (Para 64 , 67)
6. defense of unexpected attack clarifies intent. (Para 70 , 79)
7. conclusion and sentencing of the accused. (Para 81 , 82 , 86)

JUDGMENT

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,J. - By this appeal under Section 378(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the State seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 13.11.2002 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No.42/1999, vide which, all the ten accused have been acquitted from the charge of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 325, 326, 147, 148 and 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT , 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1951 Act").

2. Out of the ten accused, accused No.1 (Bhaskar Tukaram Kamble) and accused No.10 (Antakalabai w/o Gyanoji Kamble) have passed away during the pendency of the case before the Trial Court. The trial, therefore, abated as regards these two deceased accused. During the pendency of this appeal, accused No.6/ Gyanoji has passed away on 27.11.2007 and accused No.8 Vinod has passed away on 25.05.2015. This Appeal against acquittal, therefore, abates against accused No.6/ Gyanoji and accused No.8/ Vinod.

3. The prosecution had put forth it's case before the Trial Court as under :-

(a) The first informant -Deorao Amruta Gaikwad (PW-1) lodged a complaint at Hingoli Rural Police Station at about 06:30 AM on 20.08.1998 and stated therein that on 19.08.1998, he was returning from the field at about 06:00 to 06:30 PM. The accused Baburao Gyanoji Kamble was sitting on the platform (otaa) in front of his house along with Bhaskar Kamble, Shivaji Kamble, Tukaram Kamble, Antakalabai Kamble, Shobhabai Kamble. The brother of PW-1, namely, Mohan (deceased victim) approached Bhaskar, whose wife Bhartabai was the proprietor of the fair price licence shop. The deceased Mohan had gone to Bhaskar for demanding the grains from the quota of the previous month. Noticing that Mohan was demanding grains, Bhaskar called him closer and started abusing him. Thereafter, Bhaskar gave a physical blow to Mohan, who fell down on the ground. Baburao Kamble picked up a big stone and smashed the face of Mohan. Shivaji then came with an axe and assaulted Mohan. Natha Kamble assaulted Mohan with stick and stones. Vinod Kamble then assaulted Mohan with stones. Ramchandra Kamble, Gyanoji Kamble, Tukaram Kamble, Antakalabai Kamble and Shobhabai Kamble were pelting stones on Mohan, who had fallen to the ground. The mother of the deceased Gayabai started shouting and screaming. Baburao Kamble gave a stone blow on the forehead of Gayabai. Shivaji Kamble also assaulted her with an axe. Vinod Kamble, Ramchandra Kamble, Gyanoji Kamble, Tukaram Kamble, Antakalabai Kamble and Shobhabai Kamble were pelting stones. The sister-in-law of the informant, Shobhabai had tried to cover the body of Mohan so as to protect him. Shivaji Kamble gave an axe blow on the right side of her forehead. These accused picked up stones and pelted them towards the deceased. Natha Kamble used a stick to beat the mother of the deceased. PW-1 started shouting. Bhaskar Kamble gave a stick blow and Baburao Kamble assaulted Shobhabai with a stone. Natha Kamble assaulted her with a stick, which fractured her right hand. It was around 08:00 PM when this incident took place. There were electric bulbs on the public lamp poles. There were two bulbs on that pole and the pole was in front of the house of PW-1. Two electric bulbs affixed by the informant were also lighted at his door and two bulbs were also lighted at the door of Baburao Kamble.

(b) The work of constructing a portion of the house o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top