ANKUSH MARUTI SHINDE AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 05-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
ANKUSH MARUTI SHINDE AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1008-1009 of 2007)
MARCH 05, 2019
[A. K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 395, 302 read with 34, ss. 376 (2)(g),
307 read with s. 34, ss. 396, 397 and 398 – Dacoity with murder
and rape – Prosecution case that commission of murder of five
persons, robbery as well as rape of one lady – Deposition of two
eye-witnesses PW1 and PW8, and identification of the accused either
in the TI parade and/or before the court – On the basis thereof,
conviction of accused nos. 1 to 6 for the offences punishable u/ ss.
395, 302 read with 34, ss. 376 (2)(g), 307 read with s. 34, ss. 396,
397 and 398 – Over and above the other sentences, all accused
awarded death sentence – High Court, while upholding the
conviction and death sentence of original accused nos. 1, 2 & 4,
altered the death sentence in respect of original accused nos. 3, 5
& 6 to life imprisonment as also acquitted them for offence
u/s. 376(2)(g) – On appeal, held: Murder and rape is indeed a
reprehensive act and every perpetrator should be punished
expeditiously, severely and strictly – However, this is only possible
when guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt – On facts,
other than the evidence of PW1 and PW8, no other evidence either
scientific and/or other, corroborating the prosecution case, to link
the accused to the offence – PW1 and PW8 not able to give any
particulars/description of the accused to the I.O. and/or to the
magistrate who conducted the TI parade nor able to ascribe any
roles to the culprit – There are major omissions/contradictions/
improvements which are fatal to the prosecution case, thus, creates
reasonable doubt on the trustworthiness and the reliability of PW8
– Identification of the accused by PW1 in the TI parade also creates
a serious doubt – Thus, not safe to convict the accused solely on
the basis of their identification by PW1 and PW8 in the TI parade
and/or before the Court – Also no explanation as regards the delay
in conducting the TI parade and doubt as to sufficient light at the
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 709
  709
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
time of incident – Furthermore, there was no fair investigation by
the investigating agency/prosecution – Prosecution suppressed the
material fact from the court – In view thereof, accused acquitted
for the aforesaid offences – Test Identification Parade.
Investigation: Significance of – Held: Impartial and truthful
investigation is imperative – Fair trial includes fair investigation as
envisaged by Arts. 20 and 21 – Aim of investigation is ultimately to
search for truth and to bring the offender to book – It is the duty of
the prosecution to ensure fairness in the proceedings and to ensure
that all relevant facts and circumstances are brought to the notice
of the court – Investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent
and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law –
On facts, the investigating officer, the magistrate and even the
injured eye-witness deliberately and willfully suppressed from the
court the material fact of the statement of the eyewitness recorded
immediately after the incident, by the special executive magistrate
in which she specifically identified four persons who have committed
the offence from the album of the photographs of the notorious
criminals – Said magistrate conducted the TI parade subsequently
– None of the accused in the instant case are out of those four
persons identified by the eyewitness – Nothing is on record whether
those four persons were arrested or not or any further investigation
was carried out – Thus, there was a serious lapse on the part of the
investigating agency – Constitution of India – Arts. 20 and 21.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 178(3) – Further
investigation by police officer – On facts, there was no investigation
at all with respect to those four persons who were identified by the
injured eye witness immediately after the incident and these four
persons were other that the six persons tried and convicted – As a
result, real culprits went scot free – Thus, there was no fair
investigation and fair trial, resulting in infringement of the
fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed u/Arts. 20 and 21 –
Such conduct on the part of the investigating agency and the
prosecution is strongly deprecated – Prosecution to conduct
investigation u/s. 173(8) qua four persons id

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.