LexBONKY @ BHARAT SHIVAJI MANE AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BONKY@ BHARAT SHIVAJI MANE AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
!AS. ANAND AND K.S.PARIPOORNAN, J.1.J
!1Zdia1Z Pc/la/ Code, 1861f--Scctio1Zs 302, 3117, 3231149--Proscrntioll
under--lnj ured 1vit11 ess-Corrob oration by eye wit 11 es s es-Conviction
-Validity of
Sectio1Zs 302, 307, 323/ 149--Prosecutioll l111de1~Namc 1Zot 111e1Ztio1Zed
ill FIR-Not ide1Ztified ill identificatioll parade-Stateme1Zts of PWs Improved
upon-Also contradicto1y to earlier statentents--No co1roboration by 111edical
evidence-Held, Not guilty.
A
B
c
India/! Evidellcc Act,
1872---illjured wit1Zesses-Testimo1Zy D
of-Reliability on-----Held, cannot be doubted as they are staniped witnesses.
Te1rorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section
3(1 )---Prosecution under.
Assault-After altercation-Victims belong to 'Wadar' com-
E
1nunity-Conununity of the ·assaulters ·and the witnesses not known-Convic-
tion by Designated Court holding that assaulte1>· intended to create tenw in
the community-Held, inference of i11te11tio11 ca1111ot be draw11 from mere
consequence.
Sections 12, 18, llf--Conviction ll/uler !PC as also under TADA by
F
Designated Court-Acquittal under TADA by S11pre111e Cowt -P/e{f-To
transfer the case j(1r fi1st appeal to High Cowt-Held, Plea fallacioll.1-After
framing of charges and tJial by Designated Cowl, appeal against conviction,
sentence or acquittal lies only to Supre111e Cotut-Designated Cou1t-Jun·sdic-
tion of-T1ial of cases under IPC connected with TADA-Held, Before G
ji"aming of charge if offence under TADA 1wl made out-Designated cowt
can transfer the case to regular cou1t.
Constitution of India, 1950-AJt. 142-Jwisdiction unde1~Held not to
be exercised in disregard of statuto1y provision-Tl;ough the an11Jlitude of the
JJowe1~ not conditioned by any statuto1y provision.
89
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
The appellants (A-S, 8, 9, 10, & 11) were prosecuted under Sections
B
302, 307, 323/149 IPC and Section 3 of TADA.
Subset1uent to an altercation between the Accused 6, 10, & 11 with
the complainant party (PW-111 and his 3 friends) at a video parlour, the
complainants left towards a hotel where PWs 9, 14, lS and some other PWs
were present, to whom PW-111 narrated the incident at the video parlour.
Mcan\\
1hile the appellants '''ith the accused arrived there variously ar1ned
and -opened assault on them, as a result of \Vhich PW-14 sustained injury.
PW-9 and the deceased fled towards a 'Math'. The assaulters chased them
and assaulted them as a result of which PW-9 sustained injuries and the
C
deceased died. None of those with whom altercation had taken place at
the video parlour, sustained any injury. All the 3 victims belonged to
D
'Wadar Community.
On the Basis of the statements of PWs 9 & 14 F!Rs were lodged, but
in the statement of PW-9, name of A-10 was not mentioned specifically.
In Identification Parade, all the accused were identified by the
witness, but PW-9 failed to identify A-10. During trial, PWs 1(1, 11 & lS
improved upon their statements, regarding the involvement of A-10. The
testimony of PW-14 was also exaggerated contrary to his earlier statement.
E
The medical evidence showed only one injury on PW-14 which was inflicted
by A-11, as per the deposition of the witnesses.
The Designated Court holding, the motive for assault, i.e., incident
at video parlour, as proved on the basis of depositions of PWs 10, 11 & 12
corroborated by the deposition of PWs 9, 13, 14, and IS, and also holding
F
the connection of the accused \'Vith the incident at the hotel and the 'math',
as proved, on the basis of testimony of PWs 3, 4, 9 to 14, corroborated by
the evidence of PW-IS, and further holding that the accused (appellants)
intended to create terror in a section of the people ( Wadar Community),
convicted then1 of the otTences, .they were prosecuted for.
G
In appeal under Section 19 of TADA, this court, partly allowing the
appeal
HELD: I. The prosecution has not been able to establish the case
against A-10 beyond reasonable doubt and thus he is entitled to benefit of
H
doubt. In view of the improvement made by the prosecution witness and
BONKY v. STATE
91
their infirmities, it cannot he said \Vith any amount of certainty that the A
participation of A-10 in the assault or even his presence in the unlawful
assc1nhly at the ti nu~ of the assault has been substantiated. The tendency
to exaggerate Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.