Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R. G. Avachat, R. M. Joshi, JJ.
Keshav & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2017, 817, 1051 of 2019
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 - 302 - The court discussed the importance of prompt First Information Report, suppression of material statements, and the need for cogent and reliable evidence to establish guilt beyond doubt. Key legal provisions include Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the principles of reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt for the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for throwing the deceased in front of a truck, resulting in his death. The delay in lodging the First Information Report and suppression of material statements were highlighted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The delay in lodging the First Information Report and inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies raised doubts about the prosecution's case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, the delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the suppression of material statements by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt First Information Report, the need for cogent and reliable evidence, and the principle that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. It held that the guilt of the accused must be established satisfactorily beyond doubt.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith. Their bail bonds were cancelled.
JUDGMENT
R. M. Joshi, J. - Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 30th October, 2017, passed in Sessions Case No. 48/2013, appellants are challenging conviction recorded against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by preferring this appeal fled under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. As per case of prosecution, on 19th March, 2013, at about 4. 30 pm, Mahendra Gaikwad gave information to Malakoli Police Station that his brother Bhimrao had love relations with Jayashree and hence they had been to Indore to the house of the informant. Thereafter father of Jayashree had called him asking him to bring her to village and therefore, he alongwith Jayashree started from Indore on 18th March, 2013 and reached Nanded at about 6.00 am. Near railway station, they were forcibly made to sit in white coloured auto rickshaw by Keshav, Prakash, Tanaji, Devidas and Raju. At about 7.30 am, when auto rickshaw came at Mangloor Ghat, those persons stopped auto and therefore, informant got down therefrom. At that time, auto driver Raju and his son caught hold, abused and manhandled informant. Keshav, Prakash, Tanaji and Devidas assaulted Bhimrao and threw him in front of the truck bearing No. AP 01 V 9772 which was coming from Nanded side. Since the truck ran over Bhimrao, he died on the spot.
3. On the basis of said information, offence came to be registered vide C.R. No. 18/2013 and API Pawar who recorded information conducted investigation into it. During the course of investigation, spot panchanama was drawn so also inquest on the dead body was done before sending corpse for post mortem. He recorded statement of witnesses and on conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be fled.
4. On committal of the case, it was registered as Sessions Case No 48/2013. Charge was framed against accused vide Exhibit 25. Since they denied the charge, they were put on trial.
5. Prosecution examined in all seven witnesses in order to prove the charge against appellants. The trial is culminated into conviction of accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fne.
6. Learned advocate for appellants contended that there is delay of around 9 hours in lodging First Information Report and from the evidence of Mahendra (PW 1) and Devidas (PW 6) it is clear that initially information was given by Mahendra about accidental death of deceased. In this regard, attention is drawn to the testimony of Investigating Offcer who admitted to have recorded statement of Mahendra on the spot at around 9.30 am but the said statement is not part of charge-sheet. Thus, according to him, the initial information given by Mahendra about accidental death of Bhimrao is suppressed and later on, offence came to be registered against the appellants. Attention of Court is also drawn to the testimony of Jayashree to submit that there is no evidence against appellants that they forcibly made deceased and informant to sit in the auto rickshaw and on the spot of the incident, deceased was thrown under a truck coming from Nanded. He placed reliance on judgments in the matter of Ramesh Waman Bodke vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2022(5) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 535 and Balu alias Bala Subramaniam and another vs. State of (U.T. of Pondicherry) reported in 2016 CRI.L.J. 176 to support his submissions.
7. Learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order and contended that there is enough evidence in the form of testimonies of Mahendra (PW 1), Ejaj (PW 3) and Devidas (PW 6) in order to show that being aggrieved by the affair between deceased and Jayashree, appellants who were her brothers, have thrown the deceased under a truck and co-accused equally participated in the incident and they were sharing common intention.
8. We have carefully gone through entire evidence on record. Mahendra (PW 6) has deposed that on the fateful day, he along with Jayash
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of prompt First Information Re....
The court emphasized that delay in lodging an FIR must be satisfactorily explained; failure to do so may lead to acquittal if the prosecution cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The importance of prompt lodgement of the First Information Report in a criminal case, the significance of unexplained delay in the lodgement of the FIR, and the crucial question of determining wheth....
The court held that the accused's actions did not amount to culpable homicide under Section 304-Part II, modifying the conviction to a lesser offense under Section 323 IPC.
The judgment establishes that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration without corroborative evidence, especially when there are significant inconsistencies in witn....
The testimony of interested witnesses can form the basis of conviction if found to be reliable, and medical evidence should be carefully considered in determining the timing of events.
The court emphasized that an anti-timed FIR and inconsistent witness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Point of law : Object of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its ....
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
