Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
REVATI MOHITE DERE, SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Vishal @ Sagar Haribhau Nanaware @ Gurav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2019
Decided on : 19-06-2023.
The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants for the murder of the deceased. The court found that the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses was consistent and convincing, and that the motive for the murder was established by the evidence. The court also found that the failure to examine independent witnesses was not fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the presence of the eyewitnesses at the spot of the incident was natural. The court further found that the chemical analysis report, which was not put to the accused in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could not be used against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was sitting on a "lap" (katta) of Anganwadi school when the accused Nos.1 and 2 came there by motorcycle and gave a dash to the left leg of deceased; that the deceased sustained injury to his left leg and he bent ; that at that time, accused Nos.3 and 4 came there running and said to kill Shantya; that at the same time accused no.1 Sagar gave two knife blows to the left ribs of deceased; that the deceased shouted “Aai go” and bent; that he immediately went there running and Dattu Sodmise also came there and seeing them, all the accused ran away towards the left side of the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses was consistent and convincing, and that the motive for the murder was established by the evidence. The court also found that the failure to examine independent witnesses was not fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the presence of the eyewitnesses at the spot of the incident was natural. The court further found that the chemical analysis report, which was not put to the accused in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could not be used against the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses was consistent and convincing? 2. Whether the motive for the murder was established by the evidence? 3. Whether the failure to examine independent witnesses was fatal to the case of the prosecution? 4. Whether the chemical analysis report could be used against the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses was consistent and convincing because: a. The eyewitnesses were present at the spot of the incident and had a clear view of the events that transpired. b. The eyewitnesses were consistent in their testimony and their accounts of the incident corroborated each other. c. The eyewitnesses were natural witnesses who had no motive to lie. 2. The court found that the motive for the murder was established by the evidence because: a. There was evidence of a prior dispute between the deceased and the accused. b. The accused had threatened the deceased prior to the murder. c. The accused had a motive to kill the deceased because the deceased was interfering with their business. 3. The court found that the failure to examine independent witnesses was not fatal to the case of the prosecution because: a. The eyewitnesses were natural witnesses who had no motive to lie. b. The accused did not offer any evidence to contradict the testimony of the eyewitnesses. c. The failure to examine independent witnesses did not create a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. 4. The court found that the chemical analysis report could not be used against the accused because it was not put to the accused in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants for the murder of the deceased.
JUDGMENT :
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
1. Since, both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common judgment and order and hence are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By these appeals, the appellants challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 31st December 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.71 of 2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under :
3. The case of the prosecution, as gathered from the material placed on record is that on 12th March, 2012 at about 7.45 a.m., the deceased – Shantaram was sitting on the “lap” (katta) of Anganwadi. At that time, accused no.1–Vishal @ Sagar Haribhau Nanaware @ Gurav, and accused No.2–Pravin @ Sonya Sanjay Algude came to the spot by motorcycle; the motorcycle being driven by accused no.2; that the accused no.2 gave a dash of the motorcycle to the left leg of deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained injury to his left leg; that when the deceased bent down, accused no.3–Amol Vitthal Algude and accused no.4 – Sanjay Jaysing Algude came running and exhorted accused Nos.1 and 2 not to leave Shantaram and to kill him; pursuant to which, accused no.1 stabbed Shataram twice with a knife in the ribs. At that time, Shantaram shouted and the witnesses ran towards Shantaram. The accused fled from the spot. Shantaram was taken to the hospital where he expired and, as such, the FIR bearing C.R. No. 35 of 2012 came to be registered with the Phaltan Police Station by the brother of deceased i.e. Dattatrya Trimbak Sodmise for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was conducted and after conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the four accused before the JMFC, Phaltan. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the JMFC, Phaltan committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Satara, where the case came to be registered as Sessions Case No.71 of 2012. Charge was framed on 10th August, 2012 for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. PW1-Dattatrya Trimbak Sodmise–the first informant and eye witness; PW2-Shrikant Chandrakant Kadam – panch to the seizure panchnama of the motorcycle; PW3–Vijay Balu Tare – panch to the seizure panchnama of the deceased’s clothes and the clothes of Accused No 1 and also seizure of motor cycle and arrest panchnama of accused nos.1 to 4; PW4– Kondiram Baba Sodmise – eye witness and panch to the inquest panchnama; PW5–Manisha Shantaram Sodmise – the wife of deceased and eye witness; PW6–Kapil Somnath Karche – the jeep driver who was called to bring the jeep to take the deceased to the hospital; PW7–Pralhad Appa Sodmise – eye witness and uncle of the deceased; PW8–Ajinath Nivrutti Karche – panch to the spot panchnama; PW9–Dr. Yasmin Abdul Rehaman Patel – Autopsy Surgeon; PW10 – Ramesh Shivaji Pharande – the Police Naik who had scribed the spot panchnama.
6. In the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the case of the Accused was of denial and false implication. The Accused No.1 had also taken the plea of alibi. No defence witness was examined.
7. Heard Mr. Swaraj Jadhav, learned counsel appointed for the appellant in Appeal No.122 of 2013, Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for appellants in Appeal No.1144 of 2019 and Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the respondent-State. Perused the papers with the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
SUBMISSIONS:
8. Mr. Chaud
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent and trustworthy evidence, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and incriminating cir....
Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; witness testimonies deemed unreliable and contradictory.
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on quality evidence, including eyewitness testimony, corroborative evidence, and forensic reports, to establish the guilt of the accus....
The prosecution successfully proved the charge of murder against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the confirmation of the judgment and order of conviction.
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
