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) 1140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prasanna B. Varale, Surendra P. Tavade, JJ.
Laxman Babulal Rajput - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 1998
Decided On : 03-07-2021

Advocates appeared:
Prabha Mane, Advocate, Amit Mane, Advocate, M.M. Deshmukh, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, the assessment of its reliability, and the weight given to the injuries found on the witness to support her presence at the scene.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Assault and Murder - Section 144, 148, 302, 324, 449 r/w. Section 149 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the accused for assaulting and killing the deceased. The court analyzes the evidence of the sole eye-witness, the presence of sufficient light at the scene of the incident, and the identification of the accused. The court concludes that the prosecution has proved the involvement of the accused in the assault and murder, leading to their conviction.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was assaulted and killed by the accused at a creek. The sole eye-witness, the wife of the deceased, provided detailed testimony of the incident. The accused were convicted based on her evidence and medical evidence supporting her presence at the scene.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence of the sole eye-witness to be reliable and trustworthy, despite minor inconsistencies. The injuries found on the witness lend assurance to her presence at the time of the incident. The court concluded that the prosecution had proved the involvement of the accused in the assault and murder, leading to their conviction.

Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the sole eye-witness's testimony, the presence of sufficient light at the scene of the incident, and the identification of the accused. The court addressed these issues in reaching its decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of the sole eye-witness was cogent, credible, and trustworthy, and therefore required to be believed. The court also found that the injuries found on the witness supported her presence at the scene, further affirming her testimony. Based on this, the court concluded that the prosecution had proved the involvement of the accused in the assault and murder.

Final Decision: The appeal by the accused was dismissed, and they were directed to surrender bail bonds and appear before the trial court to undergo sentence.

JUDGMENT

Surendra P. Tavade, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.06.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.425/1984, the original Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal (hereinafter called and referred as the appellants).

2. The appellants and the original Accused No.5 have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s.144, 148, 302, 324, 449 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Appellants and co-accused No.5 also held guilty u/s.324 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence was imposed on the Appellants and co-accused u/s.144, 148, 149 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.

3. The case of prosecution, in brief, can be summarized as under:

The original Accused Nos.1 to 7 were prosecuted for the offences punishable u/s.143, 144, 148, 302, 326, 324 r/w. Section 149 alternatively r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. It is alleged that in the year 1984, Sampat Pilley (Deceased) was residing at Indira Nagar Hutment, Creek Side Road, inside Juhu Aerodrum, Juhu, Mumbai alongwith his family members. The Informant - Smt. Molli Sampat Pilley is wife of the Deceased - Sampat. The Informant knew appellants as Dhobis residing in the said hutment. The appellants and deceased Accused No.4 were brothers and Accused No.5 Anil is nephew of the appellants. During the trial, the original Accused No.4 reported dead, hence, case was against him abated.

4. On 17.04.1984 in the morning time, the Informant was going to attend call of nature to Juhu Aerodrum ground. The original Accused No.5 and 2 two Bhaiyas i.e. the original Accused Nos.6 and 7 teased the Informant. The Deceased - Sampat happened to pass nearby and he scolded original Accused Nos.5 to 7. In the same day of evening, the original Accused Nos.5 to 7 assaulted the Deceased. Hence, he was scared. He went out of the house on the same day and returned home at about 9.00 p.m. on 19.04.1984.

5. On 19.04.1984, at about 10.30 p.m., the Informant alongwith her husband - Deceased Sampat, her cousin brother Mohan Shetty were sitting at home and her children were sleeping. All of a sudden, 2-3 accused-persons entered into the hut of Informant and thereafter other accused-persons entered the said hut. They were armed with sword, knife, iron rods and bamboo sticks. On seeing them, Deceased - Sampat ran away from rear side portion of the hut. The Informant saw that Accused No.4 Krishan Babulal Rajput @ Pappu was having knife. The appellants were having swords, iron rods and bamboo sticks. It is alleged that the original Accused No.4 assaulted the Informant's cousin brother Mohan Shetty with knife and others assaulted him by bamboo sticks and iron rods. During the assault, Mohan Shetty ran away from the hut. So the accused-persons followed him and her Deceased husband - Sampat. The Informant saw that her husband was in the creek water. She saw that the Appellant Nos.1, 2 and the original Accused No.4 alongwith two Bhaiyas i.e. original Accused Nos.6 and 7 were assaulting him with swords, iron rods, knife and bamboo sticks. The Informant raised shouts "Bachav, Bachav". In the meantime, the Appellant Nos.1 and 3 came near her and gave blow of iron rod on her right leg and thereby she became semi-conscious and fell down. The Informant saw that her cousin Mohan Shetty was taken towards the hutment.

6. It is the case of prosecution that witness Dattaram More and his wife Smt. Lilla More came to the rescue of Informant and took her to her hut and thereafter to the hospital in autorikshaw. While being taken to the hospital, she was brought to Santacruz Police Station, where she narrated the inciden

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