Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.683 OF 2007
Jitendra Bappa Barawkar ...Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The sole appellant, along with Umesh Babanrao Khutwad [Accused No.1],
Subhash Maruti Avasare [Accused No.3], Sunil Maruti Avasare [Accused No.4] and
Rakesh Tukaram Pawar [Accused No.5], was convicted by the Trial Court under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, "I.P.C."] and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. On appeal being preferred, the
High Court acquitted Accused Nos.4 and 5, set aside their conviction under Section
302/34 I.P.C. and convicted them under Section 323 and they were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-;
in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. So far as
Accused No.1 is concerned, he did not move this Court but so far as Accused No.3 is
concerned, he filed appeal before this Court giving rise to Criminal Appeal No.1086 of
2006, which was dismissed on 19th October, 2006. This appeal by special leave has
been filed by the appellant.
....2/-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
-2-
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this
appeal submitted that case of the appellant is quite distinguishable from that of
Subhash Maruti Awasare [Accused No.3] and Umesh Baburao Kutwad [Accused
No.1] as in the first version of the occurrence disclosed by the deceased in the oral
dying declaration said to have been made before Baburao [P.W.9], who was police
constable, the name of this appellant was not disclosed, but the names of Accused
Nos.1 and 3 were disclosed. The first information report was lodged after the said
oral dying declaration. This being the position, we are of the view that it is not safe to
place reliance upon evidence of P.W.1 so far the appellant is concerned. In view of
these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in upholding the
conviction of the appellant.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the
appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant, who is in
custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any
other case.
..................
....J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]
..................
....J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
New Delhi,
May 08, 2008.