Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MADHUKAR GOVIND PAKHARE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/04/1998
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Nanvati. J.
The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal
of the respondent who was convicted by the trial court but
acquitted by the High Court. This is a case if
circumstantial evidence. The circumstances which were relied
upon by the prosecution were relied upon by the prosecution
were as under:
"1. Motive;
2. The accused and the deceased
last seen in the company of
each other;
3. Finding of blood-stained
clothes and footwear in the
house of the accused under
panchnama;
4. Finding of human blood on the
pyjama seized from the persons
of the accused at the time of
arrest of the accused;
5. Recovery of the stone at the
instance of the accused and
the same being blood-stained
with human blood of ˜’A’
Group; and
6. False explanation alleged to
have been given by the accused
to the inmates of the house of
the deceased-Dnyany on 14th
April 1982."
The trial court did not rely upon circumstances Nos. 2
and 3 but relying upon other circumstances, it convicted the
respondent.
The High Court did not place any reliance upon the
recovery of blood stained shirts from the house of the
accused as in the panchnama under which they were seized it
was not at all stated that there were blood on those shirts.
On the ’chapals’, which were recovered from the house, no
human blood was detected. Therefore, no reliance was
placed by the High Court on that circumstance also. The High
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
court doubted recovery of the stone with which the deceased
was alleged to have been killed on the ground that the whole
story was improbable particularly when it was found from a
distance of 1&1/2 furlongs. Moreover, the prosecution had
failed to establish where the incident had taken place.
We have gone through the evidence and we find that the
view taken by the High Court is not unreasonable. The -
appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Bail bond of the respondent
is cancelled.