2008(2) Supreme 898
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
P. P. Naolekar & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Mahesh s/o Janardhan Gonnade — Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 545 of 2007
Decided on : 10-04-2008
(1987) 2 SCC 529; (2003) 8 SCC 180; (1973) 2 SCC 793; (1996) 9 SCC 225; (2000) 4 SCC 484; (2007) 3 SCC 755 – Relied upon.
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – General principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal, as emerging from decisions of the Supreme Court, stated. (Para 21)
AIR 1954 SC 36; (1933-34)61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); AIR 1952 SC 52; AIR 1956 SC 217; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2007) 7 SCC 625 – Relied upon.
© Criminal trial – Related and Interested witnesses – Mere relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness – It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person – Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made.
(2007) 1 SCC 699; AIR 1965 SC 202; (1974) 3 SCC 277; (2002) 3 SCC 76; (2002) 8 SCC 381 – Relied upon.
(d) Criminal trial – Testimony of an eye-witness, who received injuries in the occurrence, if found to be trustworthy of belief, cannot be discarded merely for non-examination of the independent witnesses. (Para 39)
(1989) Supp. (2) SCC 21 – Distinguished.
(e) Criminal trial – Merely because prosecution has failed to explain injuries on the accused, the same cannot be a solitary ground for doubting the prosecution case, if otherwise, evidence relied upon is found to be credible. (Para 46)
(2006) 12 SCC 459 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case:
1. The appellant-Mahesh and one Sunita were residents of Bastarwari Ward, Paoni, Tehsil Paoni, District Bhandara. Both were having love-affair from school days. The marriage of Sunita was arranged with Sanjay, a resident of Nagpur.
2. Before the marriage of Sunita the appellant had gone to the house of Sanjay and disclosed the fact of his past love-affair with Sunita. He also threatened Sanjay to face with dire consequences if he would marry with Sunita.
3. However, the marriage between Sunita and Sanjay took place on 12.02.1988 at Nagpur.
4. On 28.03.1988, the appellant armed with a gun and knife came back to the place of incident and fired shot in the back of Sanjay, who, as a result of bleeding injury, laid on the road side. The appellant pulled Sunita’s hair and stabbed her on vital parts of head, neck and back. Sunita collapsed on receipt of severe injuries. Nirmalabai tried to save her daughter Sunita, but the appellant struck knife blows to Nirmalabai also. The appellant, on seeing the gathering of people at the scene of occurrence, ran away leaving all the three injured persons on the spot.
5. Sunita could not survive and succumbed to the injuries.
6. Trial court acquitted the appellant.
7. The High Court convicted the appellant for offence u/s 302 IPC.
Findings of the Court :
High Court reached at correct conclusions. No interference is required.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. —
1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.”) read with Section 2(A) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 read with Order 21 Rules XII to XXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. By the judgment under challenge, the High Court has partly set aside the judgment dated 25.01.1990 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, passed in Sessions Trial No.44/88 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause to suffer further six months’ R.I. The appellant, however, has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as follows :-
The appellant-Mahesh and one Sunita were residents of Bastarwari Ward, Paoni, Tehsil Paoni, District Bhandara. It was alleged that they developed love-affair with each other when they were studying in the school. The prosecution case was that the marriage of Sunita was arranged with Sanjay, a resident of Nagpur. Before the marriage of Sunita could take place with Sanjay, the appellant had gone to the house of Sanjay and disclosed the fact of his past love-affair with Sunita. He also threatened Sanjay to face with dire consequences if he would marry with Sunita. Sanjay in the presence of his brother Manik (PW-7) told the appellant that as the “Sakshagandha” Ceremony had already taken place, he was left with no other option except to marry with Sunita. It was on 12.02.1988 when the marriage between Sunita and Sanjay took place at Nagpur. On 27.03.1988, Sanjay and his wife Sunita both had gone to the house of Nirmalabai for inviting the latter to attend the marriage of the niece of Sanjay scheduled to take place at Nagpur. They had stayed for a night at the house of Nirmalabai. On the next day, i.e. 28.03.1988, Nirmalabai, Sanjay (PW-8), his wife Sunita, Archana (PW-4) - niece of Sunita and Rupesh (PW-16), son of the maternal uncle of Sunita, had gone towards the bridge side of Wainganga River for evening walk. It was alleged that around 5.00 or 5.30 in the evening, the appellant along with his friend Rajesh (PW-5) was seen by the above-said persons going on a motorcycle to Wainganga River bridge side. The appellant on seeing Sanjay, his wife Sunita, Nirmalabai, PWs-Archana and Rupesh at the site of the river, allegedly uttered “Sali Sunita Yevdha Prem Asun Aaj Ekda Sudha Mazyakade Pahile Nahi” to PW-Rajesh. The prosecution alleged that on the same day, the appellant had kept a gun and one bag at the house of Laxmibai (PW-2) in the presence of Bilkish Begum (PW-3), a neighbour of PW-2 on the pretext that he would collect these articles in the evening for hunting purpose. The appellant and PW-Rajesh returned to their respective houses in the evening. After some time, the appellant armed with a gun and knife came back to the place of incident and fire shot in the back of Sanjay, who, as a result of bleeding injury, uttered ‘Are Bapre’ and then laid on the road side. Sunita and Nirmalabai both tried to extend help to injured Sanjay, but the appellant came near them, pulled Sunita’s hair and stabbed her on vital parts of head, neck and back. Sunita collapsed on receipt of severe injuries. Nirmalabai tried to save her daughter Sunita, but the appellant struck knife blows to Nirmalabai also. The appellant, on seeing the gathering of people at the scene of occurrence, ran away leaving all the three injured persons on the spot.
3. Prakash (PW-1), a private Medical Practitioner, who lived nearby the place of occurrence, on hearing shouting of the people, went to
Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram
Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat
Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa
Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.