Rakesh @ Pintya Ramesh Rane vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar, C. V. Bhadang, JJ.
Rakesh @ Pintya Ramesh Rane & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 257, 259, 359, 919 of 2013
Decided On : 01-10-2021

Advocates appeared:
Shirish Gupte, Advocate, Supriya Kak, Advocate, Aniket U. Nikam, Advocate, Aashish I. Satpute, Advocate, Nitin Sejpal, Advocate, Akshata Desai, Advocate, Hiren Mehta, Advocate, Amin Solkar, Advocate, Misbaah Solkar, Advocate, Pratik Karande, Advocate, M.M.Deshmukh, Advocate, Shekhar Ingawale, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 120-B, and 34 - Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3, 25 - Conspiracy to commit murder and resultant shootings - Appeals from conviction of two accused challenged on grounds of identity, evidence insufficiency, and witness credibility - Convicted for murder and attempted murder. (Paras 3-10, 11-12, 40, 62-64)

(B) Evidence - Dying declaration - Unreliability questioned due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and survivor's condition - Prosecution’s case heavily dependent on eyewitness identification and the credibility of the dying declaration. (Paras 51-58)

(C) Law on Appeals - Principles on appeals against acquittal - High court's interference only warranted when lower court's view is perverse or contrary to evidence - Conviction decisions assessed based on available evidence. (Paras 61-63)

Facts of the case:
Six accused involved in conspiracy against a member of an association for sludge oil businesses leading to a murder. The deceased, after being shot, purportedly identified accused during transport to a hospital, and conflicting testimonies arose regarding the circumstances surrounding the identification and dying declaration.

Findings of Court:
Convictions of accused 4 and 5 overturned due to insufficient evidence linking them to the crime, questions surrounding witness credibility, and issues with the handling of the identification parade.

Issues: The court addressed the validity of eyewitness identification, the reliability of the dying declaration, and whether the prosecution adequately proved conspiracy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution did not conclusively establish the identity of accused 4 and 5, nor did it effectively validate the dying declaration presented.

Result: Appeals by accused 4 and 5 allowed; convictions overturned.

Table of Content
1. overview of the criminal appeals and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. summary of charges and prosecution case specifics (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments presented by parties (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. prosecution witnesses and testimonies (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. eyewitness accounts of the incident (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. procedural details of identification and credibility (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. identification procedure and its validity (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
8. critical examination of identification procedures (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
9. doubts raised over identification and evidence (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
10. challenges to evidence on weapons and conspiracy (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
11. examination of dying declaration and its credibility (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
12. conspiracy claims and witness testimonies (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
13. link between allegations and evidence (Para 61 , 62)
14. legal standards for appeal against acquittal (Para 63 , 64)
15. final judgment and implications of the ruling (Para 65)

JUDGMENT

Nitin Jamdar, J. - These four criminal appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibaug dated 28 August 2010 in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2010.

2. Six persons, (1) Satish Yashwant Patil (2) Atul Suresh Thakur (3) Krishna Kashinath Patil (4) Sumedh @ Sumit @ Pappu Chandrakant Yerunkar (5) Rakesh @ Pintya Ramesh Rane and (6) Pradeep Mahadeo Mali were accused in Sessions Case No.104/2010 and charged for the offences punishable under section 302, 307, 120-B and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sections 3, 25 of the Indian ARMS ACT , 1959.

3. Accused No.4- Pappu @ Sumedh Yerunkar and Accused No.5- Rakesh @ Pintya Rane have been convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC. Accused No.5 has filed Criminal Appeal No.257/2013, and Accused No.4 has filed Criminal Appeal No.259/2013 challenging their conviction.

4. Accused No.1- Satish Yashwant Patil, Accused No.2-Atul Suresh Thakur, Accused No.3- Krishna Kashinath Patil and Accused No.6- Pradeep Mahadeo Mali have been acquitted. Criminal Appeal No.359/2013 is filed by Ajay Thakur, brother of the deceased and Criminal Appeal No.919/2013 is filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the acquittal of these four original accused.

5. These appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

6. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:

There were many businesses at Uran dealing in sludge oil generated from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port. They formed an association of which Santosh Thakur was an office bearer. Accused No.4- Pappu Yerunkar, Accused No.5- Pintya Rane, Accused No.6- Pradeep Mali, Accused No.1- Satish Patil, and Accused No.3- Krishna Patil at Center Mall, Vashi entered into a criminal conspiracy to kill Santosh Thakur. The conspiracy was hatched to eliminate Santosh Thakur because Santosh Thakur did not give them No Objection to enter in the sludge oil business at Uran. To eliminate Santosh Thakur, Satish Patil gave Rs.50,000/- to accused Pappu Yerunkar through accused Krishna Patil. Atul and Krishna provided a motorcycle and a car.

ii) Rashad Humaji, Ajadar Pathan, Maksud and Santosh Kelkar (Fitter) have their garages at Kotnaka-Uran. On 26 April 2010, at about 6.15 p.m., Santosh Thakur came to the garage of Ajadar Pathan at Uran- Kotnaka, Kaladhonda, for car repair work. Santosh Thakur gave work of cleaning the number plate of his vehicle to Rashad Humaji. Santosh Thakur and Rashad Humaji were sitting in front of the garage. Ajadar Pathan, his brother-in-law of Masum Ijaz Pathan, was sitting there on a pipe. Three unknown persons came there on a black coloured Unicorn make motorcycle and stopped at a tea stall nearby. Two persons sitting as pillion riders got off and walked near Santosh Thakur from the backside. They were around 25 to 30 years old. One of them had curly hair

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNitin Jamdar, C. V. Bhadang, JJ.Rakesh @ Pintya Ramesh Rane & Ors. - AppellantsVersusState Of Maharashtra - RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 257, 259, 359, 919 of 2013Decided On : 01-10-2021

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar, C. V. Bhadang, JJ.
Rakesh @ Pintya Ramesh Rane & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 257, 259, 359, 919 of 2013
Decided On : 01-10-2021