Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V. KOTWAL, SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
Shreekant Yallappa Doifode - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 2014 With Interim Application No. 4354 of 2023 With Interim Application No. 4359 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2015
Decided on : 10-06-2025
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary a/w. Anush Shetty, Mr. Himanshu J. Patil i/b. Alisha Mohite, Mr. Vinit A. Kulkarni,
Prosecution's failure to explain injuries on accused undermines witness credibility, leading to reasonable doubt and resulting in acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 - Two appeals concerning conviction and acquittal - Convicted accused charged under section 302 were sentenced to life imprisonment - Acquitted accused lacked evidence support for prosecution claims regarding their actions during the altercation - Key testimonies found untrustworthy - Conflicting evidence regarding grievous injuries to accused not explained by prosecution - Importance of evidentiary reliability and the integrity of the investigation highlighted. (Paras 2, 4, 32, 37, 46)
(B) Evidentiary Standards - The Court underscored the necessity of reliable witness testimony and the implications of unexplained injuries to the accused - Failure to establish a coherent narrative resulted in the acquittals. (Paras 39, 40)
(C) Right of Private Defense - The Court recognized the potential for a valid defense based on events surrounding the altercation, particularly given the established injuries to the accused. (Paras 42, 43)
Facts of the case:
Appellants convicted for the murder of a family member following longstanding grievances. Initial altercation involved accusations of land disputes leading to violent confrontation. The death of the victim occurred due to serious blunt force injuries inflicted by the appellants. (Paras 5, 7, 22)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution could not reliably substantiate charges against the convicted appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, due to inconsistent witness accounts, lack of credible forensic evidence, and failure to provide a plausible explanation for injuries sustained by the accused during the incident. (Paras 37, 46)
Issues: Legitimacy of conviction based on witness reliability and the unexplained injuries to the accused were central to the appeal - Examination of whether defense of private self-defense was appropriately considered. (Paras 38, 42)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries to the accused undermines the integrity of their testimony regarding guilt - Legal principles of evidentiary burden reaffirmed; ultimate determination favored the necessity of a reasonable doubt standard in criminal adjudication. (Paras 39, 44)
Result: Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 2014 allowed, overturning conviction; Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2015 dismissed upholding acquittal of other accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeals and convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of the incident and witness testimonies. (Para 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's evaluation of evidence and defenses. (Para 8 , 30 , 38) |
| 4. arguments presented by the defense. (Para 32 , 34 , 41) |
| 5. conclusion of the court’s decision. (Para 48) |
JUDGMENT :
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.
1. Both these Appeals are decided by this common Judgment because they arise out of the same Judgment and order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.124 of 2011. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 were convicted and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015 were acquitted. The convicted accused have preferred Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence and the State of Maharashtra has preferred Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015 against the acquittal of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 and the Respondents in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015 are referred to either by their names or by their status as particular accused in the said sessions case. The original accused were as follows:-
i) Accused No.1 Shreekant Yallappa Doifode
ii) Accused No.2 Pravin Yallappa Doifode
iii) Accused No. 3 Shankar Akaram Doifode
iv) Accused No.4 Jayashree Shrikant Doifode
v) Accused No.5 Varsha Pravin Doifode
vi) Accused No.6 Madhuri Akaram Doifode
There was one more accused who was a child in conflict with law. She was separately tried under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 and she was acquitted under that procedure.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the accused Nos.1 to 6 were acquitted from the charges of commission of offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the I.P.C. The Accused Nos.4 to 6 were acquitted from the charges of commission of the offence punishable U/s.302 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C.
3. The Accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted for the offence punishable U/s.302 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer further S.I. for one month. The convicted accused were given set off for the period they had spent in custody as under-trial prisoners.
4. Heard Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Applicants in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014, Mr. Himanshu Patil, learned counsel for the Informant in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014, Mr. Vinit Kulkarni, learned APP for the State/Respondent in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2014 and for the Appellant/State in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015. Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary also represented the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (the original accused Nos.4, 5 and 6) in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2015.
5. The prosecution case is that, one Sandip Doifode had an agricultural land near village Ghunki, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. For a few years, his land was given for cultivation to the accused who were his relatives. After a few years, he came back to his village and started cultivating his own land. Therefore, the accused and their families were holding a grudge against Sandip. There was one more incident after the local election, wherein, there was some quarrel between Sandip on one hand and the accused on the other. The incident in the present case took place on 05.07.2011 at around 6:30p.m. It is alleged that the accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 along with the child in conflict with law threw chilly powder in Sandip’s eyes. The Accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted him with weapons like sickle and choppers. There were two blows on his head and one on his chest. Sandip’s friend took him to the hospital but he was declared dead. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged at Vadgaon police station vide the C.R.No.79 of 2011 under sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. at 9:20p.m. on 05.07.2011 by one Anil Doifode. There
