BHASKARRAO & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 26-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
751
          BHASKARRAO & ORS.
     v.
      STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
     (Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2014)
  APRIL 26, 2018.
    [N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 147, 148, 452 r/w s. 149, s.302/149 and s.506 – Prosecution
under – For murder of a person – by 16 accused – Trial Court
acquitted all the accused – High Court reversed the acquittal order
– On appeal, held: Evidence of witnesses were not consistent –
There were lot of improvement in the statement of witnesses – There
were contradictory statements as regards the number of accused
persons involved – All the witnesses were related – Material
independent witnesses were not examined – Prosecution failed to
prove motive – Panch witnesses as well as medical evidence did not
support the prosecution case – Thus, chain of events cannot be
said to have been properly brought on record by the prosecution –
In view of the shortcomings and discrepancies in the prosecution
case, accused persons cannot be said to have formed unlawful
assembly with a view to kill the deceased – Guilt of accused not
proved beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified.
Criminal Law:
Motive – Evidentiary value – Held: In a case of circumstantial
evidence, motive has a role to play – But to dislodge prosecution’s
case solely based on lack of motive would amount to giving credit
to this factor, where it is not due.
Appeal:
Appeal against acquittal – Interference with and
reappreciation of evidence by appellate Court – Scope of – Held:
Appellate court is expected to be very cautious in interfering with
the order of acquittal – Its interference is called for, only when
there are compelling reasons and substantial grounds.
[2018] 4  S.C.R. 751
                                                   751
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  4 S.C.R.
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence – Value of circumstantial evidence
rests in its accumulative effect – When several such evidences are
taken together, they may carry enough probative force to justify the
conviction, if such evidence forms an unbroken chain of events
resulting in only one hypothesis so canvassed.
Witness:
Related witness – Evidentiary value – Held: Interest of the
witness does affect his testimony – Under the influence of bias, a
man may not be in a position to judge correctly – Therefore, witness
having interest in the result, if allowed to be weighed in the same
scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would
be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the trial court, followed by a
full-fledged trial, comes to the conclusion and by cogent reasoning
acquits the accused. In such a case, the appellate Court is further
burdened with the task of reaffirming the innocence of the
accused. In such cases, the appellate Court is expected to be
very cautious and its interference with the order of acquittal is
called for only when there are compelling reasons and substantial
grounds. In other words, the High Court has full power to review
the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, yet the
presumption of innocence of the accused being further reinforced
by his acquittal by the trial Court, the findings of that Court which
had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their
evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling
reasons. [Para 23] [768-F-H; 769-A]
Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State, 1952 CriLJ 331 –
relied on.
2. The prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence
to prove the case.  The value of circumstantial evidence rests in
its accumulative effect, that is to say, while a single piece of
circumstantial evidence may only slightly increase the likelihood
that the accused is guilty, several such evidences taken together
may carry enough probative force to justify the conviction, if such
circumstantial evidence forms an unbroken chain of events
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
resulting in only one hypothesis so canvassed.  [Para 26]
[769-D-E]
3. The witnesses in the present case were inter-related,
and this court should be cautious in accepting their statements.
Whoever has been a witness before the court of law, having a
strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in the same
scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would
be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth. This sound
rule which remain the bulwark of this system, and w

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