http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/07/1989

BENCH:

KULDIP SINGH (J)

BENCH:

KULDIP SINGH (J)

NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:

1989 AIR 1762 1989 SCR (3) 400

1989 SCC Supl. (1) 758 JT 1989 (3) 166

1989 SCALE (2)66

ACT:

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302--Murder--Ac-

cused acquitted by trial court--High Court reversed acquit-

tal order--Held wife’s conduct in not naming assailant

highly improbable and unnatural--Accused entitled to benefit

of doubt--Acquitted.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant was charged under Section 302 I.P.C. for

committing the murder of the deceased. At the trial, prose-

cution produced P.W.3, wife of the deceased, and P.Ws.10, 11

and 12, all eye witnesses. Except for P.W.3, all other eye

witnesses were declared hostile. Thus, the prosecution

depended on the sole testimony of P.W.3.

P.W.3 deposed that she saw the appellant hitting her

husband with a stick. But admittedly, she did not disclose

the name of the appellant to anybody including the Police.

The doctor, who came to the house of the deceased little

later, examined and treated the deceased and removed him to

the hospital deposed that he was told by the mother of the

deceased that the family did not suspect anybody. Another

witness who was passing by the scene of occurrence also

testified that nobody informed him about the appellant or

any other person, who injured the deceased.

The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant.

But, on appeal, the High Court, set aside the acquittal

order, and convicted and sentenced the appellant to impris-

onment for life. Hence, the appeal by the accused.

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: The conduct of the deceased’s wife was highly

unnatural. A wife, who has seen an assailant giving fatal

blows with a stick to her husband, would name the assailant

to all present and to the police at an earliest opportunity.

There is nothing in the evidence to justify this highly

unnatural and improbable conduct of the deceased’s wife.

Even her statement recorded by police head constable, is

entirely different than what she stated at the trial. The

prosecution has, thus, not

401

been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt. [404F-G]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

Therefore, the appellant is given benefit of doubt, the

judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the appellant

is acquitted of the charge under section 302, IPC. [404H]

JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 75

of 1979.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.2. 1976 of the

Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 1973.

Raghunath Singh (Amicus Curiae) for the Appellant.

A.S. Bhasme and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. The appellant, Shivaji Patil was ac-

quitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur of the

charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for committing

murder of one Tulashiram Sutar, but on appeal the High Court

by its judgment dated February 6, 1976 set aside the order

of acquittal and convicted him under section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for

life.

The house of deceased Tulashiram in Village Rashivade

adjoins the temple of Shri Ambabai and in front of the

temple, there is open place. The deceased along with his

wife Parvatibai, two children and parents was living in the

house. Cousin brothers of the deceased and their mother were

living in the adjoining house.

Vyanku Sutar belonging to the brother-hood of deceased

was also living in the same village. The deceased had illic-

it relation with Vyanku’s wife Akkatai. Parvatibai claimed

to have caught them in the se