LexGAJANAN DASHRATH KHARATE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2016] 2 S.C.R.852
GAJANAN DASHRATH KHARATE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 2057of2010)
FEBRUARY 26, 2016
[T. S.THAKUR, CJI. AND R. BANUMATIII, J.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Frequenl i11cidents of
altercatio11s a11d assault between the father and his son-appellant -
Appellant a habitual drinker, gambler a11d used to demand mo11ey
{i-om his father - On the fatefit! day, the father found dead, lying in
pool of blood - Day before the incident PW! heard altercation
between the father and his son - Co11victio11 of the appellant u!s.
302 and sentenced to l{fe impriso11111e11t by courts below - On appeal.
held: Credibility of prosecution witnesses ca1111ot be doubted 011 the
D ground that they did 11ot try to intervene i11 the quarrel day before
the i11cident - Prosecution explained the delay in lodging the
complaint - There was presence of deceased '.s blood group on the
clothes of appellant - Prosecutio11 proved the presence of the
appellant when the deceased died - No11-expla11atio11 by accused
E
F
G
H
as to the homicidal death of his father, a strong circu111sra11ce against
the accused- Thus, interference with the convictio11 of the appellalll
uls. 302 and the sentence of life imprisonment by the courts be/u11',
not called for - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 106.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Delay in setting the law into motion by lodging
of complaint and registration of first information report is normally
viewed by courts with suspicion because there is possibility of
concoction and embellishment of the occurrence. So it becomes
necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay.
The object of insisting upon a prompt lodging of the report is to
obtain early information not only regarding the assailants but also
about the part played by the accused, the nature of the incident
and the names of witnesses. In the instant, prosecution
satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging the complaint. As
such the prosecution case cannot be doubted on the small delay
between the time of occurrence and in registration of first
852
GAJANAN DASHRATH KHARATE v. STATE OF
853
MAHARASHTRA
information report. !Para 10] [857-H; 858-A-Bi
1.2 The credibility of PWs 1 and 2 cannot be doubted on
the ground that they did not try to intervene in the quarrel between
the appellant and the deceased day before the incident. Apart
from the oral evidence, case of prosecution is also strengthened
by recovery of blood stained clothes of the appellant. During
chemical analysis, it was found that the shirt of the appellant
contained 'B' Group blood which is the blood group of deceased.
The appellant did not offer any explanation as to presence of 'B'
Group blood in his clothes, which is yet another incriminating
circumstance against the a11pellant. [Paras 9 and 11] [857-C, E;
858-C]
1.3 As seen from the evidence, appellant and his father and
mother were living togetl1er. On 07 .04.2002, mother of the
appellant-accused had gone to another village. Prosecution
proved the presence of the appellant at his home on the night of
07.04.2002. Therefore, the appellant was duty bound to explain
as to how the death of his father was caused. When an offence
like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial
burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the
prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there
would be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to
give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The
inmates ·of the house cannot get away by simply kee11i11g quiet
and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the
burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution
and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. On the date of
occurrence, when accused and his father were in the house and
when the father of the accused was fonnd dead, it was for the
accused to offer an explanation as to how his father sustained
injuries. When the accused could not offer any explanation as to
the homicidal death of his father, it is a strong circumstance
against the accused that he was responsible for the commis~ion
of the crime. [Para 12] 1858-D-G I
1.4 Upon appreciation of oral evidence and the circumstance
of the re~overy of blood stained clothes of the accused and the
conduct of the accused in not offering any explanation for the
homicidal death of his father,Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.