Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1300/2010
ISHWAR YADAV PATIL APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
The appellant was convicted under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC by the Vth Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.77 of
1991 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. In the impugned order the High Court has
sustained the conviction. In paragraph 26, the
following circumstances have been highlighted by the
High Court:-
i. That, it was deceased Suresh who 15
days prior to the incident informed Manohar
(PW-13) that his hybrid Jawar crop was cut
by the appellants and as a result, PW-13
Manohar Patil called both the appellants in
presence of Suresh, questioned them and
when the appellants admitted, Manohar PW-13
beat both the appellants. So, this becomes
motive as because of deceased Surech, the
theft committed by the appellants came to
light. The appellants had to suffer
thrashing at the hands of PW-13 Manohar.
JUDGMENT
ii. Second circumstance against the
appellants is that about 2-3 hours before
the incident PW-6 Dhanraj Patil was told by
deceased that both the appellants had given
him threat of killing with sickle.
1
Page 1
iii. The dead body of Suresh was lying
in the Wheat corp with scarf around his
neck by which strangulation was committed.
The death of Suresh was due to
strangulation. It was homicidal death and
not incidental or suicidal death.
iv. PW-12 Vaijayantabai saw the
appellants near dead body at about 2.00 to
2.30 p.m. and on seeing Vaijayantabai and
being questioned by her as to what they
were doing, both the appellants ran away.
v. As a result of shouts by
Vaijayantabai, PW-8 Mukunda, PW-9 Laxman,
PW-11 Hirabai and PW-17 Rupchand came
running and asked PW-12 Vaijayantabai what
had happened and she disclosed that
appellants had killed Suresh by
strangulation, which was the inferecne
drawn by her from the circumstances seen by
her. Her conduct is relevant in
immediately disclosing names of the
appellants.
vi. The appellants have not given
explanation as to why they had gone to
Wheat field of deceased Suresh and what
they were doing while bending on the dead
body and why they ran away when seen and
questioned by PW-12 Vaijayantabai. This
omission to explain conduct coupled with
motive and earlier incident becomes a
strong circumstance against the appellant.
JUDGMENT
3. We have also gone through the evidence in detail,
particularly of the key witnesses PW.12 and PW.13.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and having gone through the evidence
and judgments passed by the Sessions Court as well as
the High Court, we do not find any ground to take a
different view.
5. The appeal is hence dismissed.
2
Page 2
6. However, having regard to the fact that the
appellant was a young boy of 19 years at the time of
occurrence, we request the State to consider his case
for remission as per guidelines.
.......................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J.
[A.M. KHANWILKAR]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 31, 2017.
JUDGMENT
3
Page 3