BALAJI GUNTHU DHULE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 19-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 7 S.C.R. 577 
BALAJI GUNTHU DHULE 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 
[H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Conviction under - Challenge 
A 
B 
to - Death of one person in course of a quarrel - Trial court 
convicted accused-appellant and two other accused u/s. 302 C 
rlw s. 34 based on the evidence of PWs 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 - High 
Court acquitted the other two accused but convicted the 
appellant u/s. 302 - High Court rejected the evidence of PWs 
4, 5, 7 and 8, but confirmed the order of trial court primarily 
based on the evidence of PW10 - High Court came to the o 
conclusion that since PW10 had taken the deceased to the 
hospital, he could have been present at least after the incident 
- To come to a conclusion that PW10 was present at the time 
of the incident, the High Court relied upon the statement 
made by appellant u/s. 313 CrPC - Held: The statement of the 
E 
accused recorded u/s.313 CrPC cannot be put against the 
accused person -The statement made under this Section 
should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with 
evidence adduced by the prosecution - In the instant case, 
the appellant in his statement uls.313 CrPC admitted that 
F 
there was a quarrel between accused 'S' and PW10 and while 
rushing to the spot of quarrel the deceased involuntarily fell 
on a cement concrete platform and thereby suffered the fatal 
injury - The prosecution story, however, was that a quarrel 
between the deceased and accused 'S' in fact took place, 
however, the fatal injury was caused by a deliberate blow by 
G 
the appellant on the deceased - There is absolute 
contradiction in the statement made by the appellant in his 
statement u/s.313 CrPC and that statement could not have 
577 
H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A been put against the accused in concluding that PW10 was 
present at the place of incident at or immediately after the 
occurrence of the incident - Therefore, the said witness cannot 
be considered as eye-witness to the incident as such - The 
High Court also relied upon the postmortem report of the 
B Doctor - Since the entire evidence of the eye-witnesses was 
not accepted by the High Court, it could not have merely 
relied upon the postmortem report to convict the appellant for 
an offence uls.302 /PC - Further, the postmortem report 
should be in corroboration with the evidence of eye-witnesses 
c and cannot be an evidence sufficient to reach the conclusion 
for convicting the appellant - Appellant-accused accordingly 
acquitted - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313. 
D 
Manu Sao v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 310: 2010 
(8) SCR 811 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (8) SCR 811 
referred to 
Para 7 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
E No. 784 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.10.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in 
Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2004. 
F 
Minakshi Vij for the Appellant. 
G 
Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at 
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.108 of 
H 2004 dated 19.10.2005. 
BALAJI GUNTHU DHULE v. STATE OF 
579 
MAHARASHTRA 
2. The appellant, before us is convicted under Section 302 
A 
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" 
for short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life, by the Trial 
Court, on the allegation that he has caused the death of one 
Ranga Rao in a quarrel which ensued between Ranga Rao and 
one Smt. Shantabai (other accused who expired during the 
B 
trial). The Prosecution, in support of its case, had examined 
several witnesses, including six eye-witnesses- P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 
7, 8 and 10. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the 
evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10, has convicted and 
sentenced the appellant and two others, as mentioned earlier. c 
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Trial 
Court, the appellant and two others were before the High Court 
in an appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short). 
3. The High Court, after re-appreciation of the evidence 
D 
on record, has acquitted the two other accused, but has 
convicted the appellant only for an offence under Section 302 
of the 1.P .C. It

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