BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 04-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

452 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 452 
BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Crimina1Appea1No.1516of2011) 
OCTOBER 04, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWD.A AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
· .. ·. 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss.147, 149, 302 rlw ss.149, 324 and 326 - Political enmity -
Murder of one and injuries to six persons - Acquittal of all accused 
by trial court on the ground that material witnesses were related or 
otherwise interested; that there was improvement in the version 
initially given to police and version put forward before the court; 
and inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses in the manner of 
assault and the weapon used - High court reversed the order of 
acquittal in case of appellants - On appeal. held: Trial court had 
adopted perverse approach in mechanically rejecting the entire 
evidence comprising of injured eye witnesses by finding one or the 
·other contradiction - The occurrence took place in broad day light 
- One of the accused mentioned about the enmity on account of the 
panchayat election - The said accused himself was injured which 
proved his presence at the scene of the occurrence -
All the five 
eye witnesses consistently named appellants (A-1 toA-7)- Appellants 
(A-1 to A-7) were assigned specific role in assaulting the deceased 
- Therefore, their conviction and sentence ulss.3021149 is not 
interfered with - However, in case of A-JO and A-ll. benefit of 
doubt is granted and they are acquitted since they were not named 
by PW-11 and PW-18 and also PW-JO attributed specific role to A-
l to A-7 only. 
s.149 - Vicarious liability of member of an unlawful assembly 
- Held: An offence committed in prosecution of common object of 
an unlawful assembly by one person renders members of unlawful 
assembly sharing the common object vicariously liable for the 
offence - When a crowd of assailants are members of an unlawful 
assembly, it may not be possible for witnesses to accurately describe 
the part played by each one of the assailants -
The common object 
has to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members of 
452 
BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD & ORS. v. STATE OF 
453 
MAHARASHTRA 
the assembly and all the surrounding circumstances . 
Evidence: Discrepancies and contradictions in evidence of 
witnesses - Held: Discrepancies may arise due to error of 
observations, loss of memory due to lapse of time, mental disposition 
such as shock at the time of occurrence -Normal discrepancy does 
not affect the credibility of a witness - Only when discrepancies are 
so incompatible as to affect the credibility of the version of a witness, 
the Court may reject the evidence - The discrepancies of trivial 
nature could not be the basis of rejecting the evidence of eye 
witnesses nor non-examination of some of the witnesses be a ground 
to reject the prosecution case when injured eye witnesses were 
examined. 
Appeal: Appellate authority - Scope of interference -
Discussed. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence 
that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and the 
accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. The 
prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and 
the accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. 
The reasonable doubt is one which occurs to a prudent and 
reasonable man. Section 3 of the Evidence Act refers to two 
conditions - (i) when a person feels absolutely certain of a fact ..:. 
"believe it to exist" and (ii) when he is not absolutely certain and 
thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would, under 
the circumstances, act on the assumption of its existence. The 
doubt which the law contemplates is not of a confused mind but 
of prudent man who is assumed to possess the capacity to 
"separate the chaff from the grain". The degree of proof need 
not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability. 
[Para 18) [465-C-E) 
2. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the court 
has to assess whether. read as a whole, it is truthful. In doing so, 
the court has to keep in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and 
infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the 
truthfulness. Some discrepancies not touching the core of the 
case are not enough to reject the evidence as a whole. No true 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
454 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
witness can escape from giving some 

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