Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1609 OF 2007
Ram Maruthi Pawar ....Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents
(With Criminal Appeal No.1603 of 2007)
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. These two appeals are inter-linked and are directed against a common
judgment of the Bombay High Court. Of the two appeals before the High
Court, one was filed by Nathu Keru Bhatre (hereinafter described as ‘A-
12’). The other appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra questioning the
acquittal of one Mahadeo Dhandu Chavan (hereinafter referred to as ‘A1’)
and the appellant Ram Maruti Pawar (hereinafter described as ‘A14). In all,
1
15 accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
‘IPC’). The trial court convicted A12 while directing acquittal of other
accused persons. The State's appeal before the High Court related to
accused nos. 1 and 14. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State
qua Ram Maruthi Pawar A14 while upholding the acquittal so far as
Mahadeo Dhandu Chavan (A1) is concerned.
2. Though learned counsel for the appellant urged many points, we do
not feel it necessary to go into them in detail. There are some disturbing
features which have been noticed. It appears that during the course of trial,
learned prosecutor appearing for the State conceded before the trial court
that it was not possible to say that any offence has been committed by
accused Nos.2 to 15 and they can be immediately set at liberty. The trial
recorded the concession in the following words:
“At the very outset of this arguments, Shri Pandey
submitted that after critical examination of the
prosecution evidence, it is not possible to say that any
offence has been committed by accused
Nos.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,ll,l2,l3,14 and 15 and they can be
immediately set at liberty. All that time prosecution
could alleged, against these accused is that they had
produced sticks from their houses after execution of
2
certain Panchanamas filed at Exhs. 60 to 64 but more
production of a stick from the house is not enough to
implicate them in the murders that had taken place unless
any further corroboration was there to indicate that they
had really taken part in the murderous assault. As there is
no evidence whatsoever to show that these persons had
belabored the deceased, it was but natural for Shri
Pandey to submit that he has no comment to make
against them.”
3. Nevertheless the trial court convicted A12 which was challenged
before the High Court. It is also interesting to note that before recording the
concession of learned counsel for the prosecution, the High Court noted that
the evidence of Narayan Pandy Ghungre (PW9) as regards the particular
part played by accused Nos.2 and 14 are relevant. It has been noted as
follows:
“23. xxx xxx xxx
But PW9 Narayan says that he was able to identify 2/3
persons that were rushing at him with some instruments
in their hands and accordingly he says that accused
Nos.12 and 14 were these persons who were chasing
them.
24. It is on the basis of the statement of PW9 Narayan
that the particular part played by accused Nos.12 and 14
3
in the commission of the crime of murder has been
sought to be established by the prosecution, while
maintaining that so far as the other accused are
concerned, there is no evidence whatsoever to connect
them with the crime."
4. The High Court's judgment is equally baffling. The High Court noted
that the identification parade took place after three months when PW9
identified accused Nos.12 and 14. The High Court in this context noted as
follows:
“PW9 further states that the woman then directed
her attention to the witness and told the villagers that
Narayan and Sitaram were also thieves. Then 2/3
villagers rushed at Narayan, asked Sitaram to come down
from the three immediately. Accordingly, Sitaram came
down and 2/3 Arsons who had rushed on them were
identified as accused Nos.12 and 14. He stated that in the
parade that took place after three months, he identified
the accused Nos.12 and 14.”
5. But after indicating some reasons, the High Court noted that the
evidence regarding the parade is to be rejected. The High Court also noted
the fact that before the police PW9 did not say anything about his being an
4
eyewitness. But High Court went on to hold that just because he has given
different versions at different point of time, his evidence cannot be
discarded and it cannot be said that he is not an eye-witness. The
conclusions of the High Court are certainly not defensible. It is to be noted
that PW9 Narayan's evidence is full of contradictions.
6. That being so, the High Court was not justified, apart from other
important aspects highlighted above, in convicting the appellants. The
appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. The conviction as recorded by
the trial court and the High Court, so far as Nathu Keru is concerned and the
conviction as recorded by the High Court so far as Ram Maruthi Pawar is
concerned, are set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the
charges. They are to be set at liberty and released forthwith from custody
unless required to be in custody in any other case.
....................................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
……............................................J.
(LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)
5
……............................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
New Delhi;
April 15, 2009
6