DHANANJAY SHANKER SHETTY versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 31-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DHANANJA Y SHANKER SHETTY 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
JULY 31, 2002 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with Section 34-Conviction 
under-No direct evidence-Non-disclosure of name of the accused in station 
diary entry-Statement of witnesses that accused seen by them fleeing away 
C with weapons-Conviction by Trial Court-Upheld by High Court-On 
appeal-Held, in viewo/ non-disclosure of the name in the station diary entry 
witnesses not reliable-Conviction set aside. 
D 
Criminal Trial: 
Injuries on accused-Not explained by prosecution-Effect of-Held, 
non-explanation of injuries assumes significance when there are material 
circumstances which make the prosecution case doubtful . 
. Motive-Not alleged or proved-Effect of-Held, merely because motive 
E is neither alleged nor proved would ipso facto not affect prosecution case. 
F 
Practice and Procedure-Concurrent finding by courts below-
Reappraisal of evidence by Supreme Court-Permissibility of-Held, ordinarily 
not permitted-But where it is found that compelling grounds exist it is permitted 
. for doing complete justice. 
· 
Appellant-accused and two other accused were tried for offences 
under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. Prosecution case was that PWs 1,2 
and 9, police constables while they were on patrolling duty saw appellant 
and his associate running armed with weapons shouting that 'U' was killed. 
They came to the spot of incident, and found 'U' lying dead. PWl then 
G sent telephonic message to the police station stating that the deceased was 
killed by appellant-accused. However, name of the appellant was not 
entered in station diary. 
On medical examination of the appellant, several injuries were found 
on his person. Two other accused were also arrested as suspects. All the 
H 
352 
DHANANJA Y SHANKER SHEITY v. STATE 
353 
... 
three accused were identified in Test Identification Parade by PWs 1,2 and A 
9. Blood stained clothes and weapons were recovered from the house of 
the appellant 
Sessions Court acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant. 
accused of the charges. The conviction was confirmed by High Court. Both 
the courts found legal infirmities in the holding of test identification parade B 
and also did not rely on the recovery of clothes and weapons. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that prosecution had not 
established its case beyond reasonable doubt in view of failure to explaill 
injuries on him and absence of allegation or evidence to prove motive of c 
the appellant to commif the offence. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable 
doubt and the High Court was not justified in upholding the conviction D 
of the appellant. (358-A( 
2.1. The fact that name of the appellant was not mentioned in station 
diary entry makes the statement of PWs 1,3 and 9, to the effect that in 
the telephonic information which was given to the police station by them 
name of the appellant was disclosed, highly doubtful. None of the three E 
witnesses had seen any of the accused. persons much less the appellant 
fleeing away and when they found the deceased lying dead, they might 
have sent telephonic message to the police station only to the effect that 
he had been murdered and name of the appellant was not disclosed therein 
and subsequently when PWs 12 and 15 arrived at the place of occurrence, 
name of the appellant was disclosed for the first time in the Jard beyan as F 
he was a history-sheeter. Thus, because of non-disclosure of name of the 
' 
appellant in the station diary entry, it is not safe to place reliance on the 
evidence of PWs 1,3 and 9 that they had seen the appellant and three other 
accused persons fleeing away with swords and choppers shouting that 'U' 
was killed. (356-F, G, H; 357-A( 
G 
1 
2.2. As the appellant was named accused person, his so called 
identification in the test identification parade could not be of any avail to 
the prosecution. (357-C( 
3. It cannot be laid down as a matter of law or invariably a rule that H 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A whenever accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the 
prosecution is obliged to explain it and on its failure to do so the 
prosecution case should be disbelieved. But non-explanation of injuries 
assumes significance when there are material circumstances which· make 
the prosecution case doubtful. In the instant case,

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