SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 11115

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Revati Mohite Dere, Manjusha Deshpande, JJ
Ananda Yashwant Murkute – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikas B. Shivarkar, Praful Soni
For the Respondents: K. V. Saste

In criminal trials, consistent and credible eyewitness testimony, when corroborated by medical reports and forensic fingerprint analysis, is sufficient to establish guilt. Procedural delays in witness examination do not invalidate testimony or discredit the prosecution if the reliability and presence of witnesses are otherwise clearly established.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Punishment for murder - Conviction based on ocular testimony supported by medical and forensic evidence - Appellate jurisdiction - Scope of interference in findings of trial court - When conviction rests on reliable, credible and consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by objective physical evidence, appellate interference is not warranted unless there is perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. (Paras 6, 8, 19, 21, and 23)

(B) Evidence - Witness testimony - Delay in recording statements - Mere delay in recording the statement of an eyewitness by the investigating agency does not render the testimony inherently untrustworthy or create doubt about presence, provided the witness is corroborated by other evidence and deemed reliable. (Para 21)

(C) Evidence - Forensic science - Chance fingerprints - Development of fingerprint evidence on the weapon of offence establishes a strong nexus between the accused and the crime, serving as critical corroboration of ocular testimony. (Para 21)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered his spouse following a verbal dispute over money required for personal habits. The incident was witnessed by two family members present on the premises. The accused allegedly assaulted the victim with an iron tool used for tractor equipment. The defense challenged the veracity of the witnesses, citing a delay in recording statements and questioning the authenticity of the forensic evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the medical evidence confirmed the homicidal nature of the death and that the injuries were consistent with the blunt force trauma caused by the weapon recovered. The testimony of the eyewitnesses was found to be consistent, clear, and unambiguous. The forensic report regarding fingerprints found on the weapon confirmed the involvement of the accused, further strengthening the prosecution case.

Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the impact of a delay in recording the witness statement on the veracity of the case, and the sufficiency of forensic evidence to corroborate the ocular testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: Ocular evidence from witnesses, when found to be truthful and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The court held that established presence at the scene and consistency in narration override procedural delays in record-keeping, and that forensic reports identifying the accused's fingerprints on the weapon of offence provide conclusive corroboration.

Result: Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction stand confirmed.

Table of Content
1. overview of prosecution case and establishment of homicidal death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. assessment of eye witness testimony credibility. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. verification of forensic, medical, and investigation evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. examination of defense arguments and denial of involvement. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. court’s consolidated reasoning establishing appellant's guilt. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. formal dismissal of appeal and confirmation of conviction. (Para 24)

J U D G M E N T

PER MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.:-

1. The appellant herein has been convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 20th February 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 97 of 2014. The appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), 1860, and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the present Appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973.

2. The brief facts leading to the present proceeding can be summarized as under:

According to the prosecution, the informant- Surekha Murkute was residing in a joint family of her husband. Her real sister Sarika was married to her brother-in-law. The said brother-in-law was idle and was not doing any work. He was addicted to liquor. He used to demand money from his parents for consuming liquor. On refusal, he used to pick up quarrel with his family members. On the fateful day, i.e. on 29th October 2013, the accused/appellant demanded money from his parents for visiting ‘Balaji’. When they refused, he quarreled with them. Since he was abusing his parents, they left the house and went to the field. The informant- Surekha, her sister Sarika (deceased) as well as their children and the accused were present in the house. At around 11:00 a.m., the accused demanded keys of the sliding gate from Sarika. When she informed that she did not know the whereabouts of the keys, the accused demanded money for liquor. When she expressed her inability to give him money, the accused abused her. The accused then proceeded to the storeroom and came back to the hall, carrying toppling (an equipment which is used for joining tractor with the trolley) in his hand. While the accused was taking the said toppling from the storeroom, he was seen by Nikita, who is his niece. Nikita also inquired, as to where the accused was taking the said toppling, without answering her query, he proceeded towards the house. The accused entered the house and assaulted his wife Sarika. On hearing cries, the informant- Surekha, who was sitting in the adjacent bedroom as well as Nikita from her house rushed towards the hall, and saw the accused giving blows with the toppling on Sarika’s head.

On observing the deadly scene before them, they got frightened and Nikita ran outside the house and shouted for help. In the meanwhile, the accused left the house leaving the toppling in the courtyard of the house. In response to the shouts given by Nikita, one Balu Namdev Shitole rushed to the scene of offence and took Sarika to Pawna Hospital, where she was declared dead. On receiving information from the Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, the Investigating Officer (I.O), Mr. Appasaheb Waghmale was informed about the incident. He visited the place where the incident had occurred. He came back to the police station alongwith the informant and the complaint was registered. Consequently, Crime bearing No. 502 of 2013 was registered against the accused. The registration of crime was followed by the inquest panchanama. Postmortem on the deceased was performed by Dr. Madhav Waghmare. The spot panchanama was conducted by the I.O. in the presence of panchas. The samples of blood were collected. The

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