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 de