Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, A. S. Gadkari, JJ.
Mahadeo Rama Madhvi & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 2011, 1567 of 2018, 831 of 2019, 248 of 2021, 824, 1349, 535 of 2011, Criminal Application (Appa) No. 781 & 1893 of 2018, Criminal Application (Appa) No. 206 of 2019, Interim Application No. 715 of 2021 In Criminal Appeal No. 1567 of 2018
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shirish Gupte, Gargi Joshi, Mr. Jitesh Mundhwa, Ms. Sakshi Kadam, Mr. Kedar Patil, Mr. Nitin Sejpal, Ms. Pooja Sejpal, Ms. Akshata Desai
For the Respondent: Mr. H. J. Dedhia
The reliability of witness testimony and recovery evidence is crucial in establishing guilt or innocence in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Criminal Appeals - Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 IPC - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The judgment disposes of seven Criminal Appeals arising from the same incident dated 13.03.2009. The incident involved a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, resulting in the death of the deceased. The prosecution's case was based on ocular evidence and recovery evidence of weapons and blood-stained clothes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the father of the deceased was unreliable and failed to establish his presence at the scene of the incident. However, the court found the testimony of the cousin brother of the deceased to be reliable and accepted his evidence. The court also found the recovery evidence of blood-stained clothes and weapons to be reliable and trustworthy.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, including the ocular evidence and recovery evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of the cousin brother of the deceased was reliable and accepted his evidence. The court also found the recovery evidence of blood-stained clothes and weapons to be reliable and trustworthy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed some appeals, allowed others, and directed the appellants in one appeal to surrender within a specified period.
JUDGEMENT :
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of following 7 Criminal Appeals. All Appeals arise out of the same incident dated 13.03.2009. For the sake of brevity, Appellants hereinafter will be referred as per their original nomenclature before the Trial Court i.e. accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 etc.
(i) Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 2011 has been filed by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 to challenge legality and validity of Judgment and Order dated 01.06.2011 (for short “impugned judgment”) passed by learned Sessions Court Raigad at Alibag in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2009 arising out of FIR bearing C.R. No. 45 of 2009, convicting Appellants under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) of charges punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellants have also been convicted under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for various terms; all sentences to run concurrently and the sentence in default to run consequently.
(ii) Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2011 has been filed by original accused Nos. 3 and 5 to 14 to challenge the impugned judgment.
(iii) Criminal Appeal No. 1567 of 2018 has been filed by original accused No. 4 to challenge his conviction by the impugned order.
(iv) Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2019 has been filed by original accused Nos.3, 5 to 9 to challenge the impugned judgment.
(v) Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2021 has been filed by the original accused Nos. 10 to 14 to challenge the impugned judgment.
(vi) Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2011 has been filed by first informant / original complainant Manohar Patil, father of deceased to challenge acquittal of Respondents (Original Accused No. 15 to 18) by the impugned judgment.
(vii) Criminal Appeal No. 535 of 2011 has been filed by Appellants, original accused Nos. 1 to 9 against their conviction by the Judgment and Order dated 02.06.2011 in Sessions Case No. 136 of 2009 arising out of cross complaint/FIR bearing C.R. No. 44 of 2009. Accused Nos. 1 to 9 have been convicted under Sections 324 & 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment.
2. Sessions Case No. 81 of 2009 was conducted against Original Accused Nos. 1 to 14 and Sessions Case No. 154 of 2010 was conduct separately against Original Accused Nos. 15 to 18 in C.R. No. 45/2009. By a common Judgment and Order dated 01.06.2011, both sessions cases were disposed of convicting accused Nos. 1 to 14 and acquitting accused Nos. 15 to 18.
2.1. Sessions Case No. 136/2009 was conducted against 9 accused in the cross complaint / FIR in C.R. No. 44/2009filed by the original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 81/2009. By Judgment and Order dated 02.06.2011, this Sessions Case was disposed of convicting accused Nos. 1 to 9.
2.2. In so far as both the Sessions trials are concerned, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex court, since both the trials pertain to the incident which occurred one after the other, the learned Trial Court has conducted both the trials one after another and delivered the judgments dated 01.06.2011 and 02.06.2011 which are impugned in the present set of Appeals.
3. Facts which emerge for consideration from the prosecution case are as under:-
3.1. Incident took place at 10:45 p.m. on 13.03.2009. FIR being C.R. No. 45/2009 was lodged by first informant, Manohar Gopal Patil at 1:10 a.m. on 14.03.2009 against 18 accused.
3.2. According to prosecution, prelude to incident occurred on 11.03.2009, when there was quarrel between accused No. 2 - Jagdish Madhvi and Sameer Damodar Madhvi on the second day of Holi festival (dhulvad); in that quarrel Rajesh Manohar Patil (deceased) intervened and supported Sameer M
