GANGARAM SHANTARAM SALUNKHE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 22-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GANGARAMSHANTARAMSALUNKHE 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
NOVEMBER 22, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with section 34-Conviction 
under-Upheld by High Court-Interference with-Held: Evidence was 
·consistent and corroborated by medical evidence-Dying declaration also C 
could not be discarded-There being few minor discrepancies, does not call 
for interference with the order of High Court-Evidence Act, I 872-Section 
34. 
According to the prosecution case, accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 stopped 
vehicle on which Band PW4 were proceeding. Accused No. 3 caught hold of D 
B and accused no. 2 and accused no. 4-appellant assaulted him with knife. 
PW4 tried to save the deceased but was threatened. B also tried to save himself, 
but was assaulted by accused nos. 2 and 3. B was taken to the hospital. Doctor 
examined him and declared him dead. PW 4 got the complaint registered. Trial 
Court convicted and sentenced accused nos. I to 4 under section 302 read 
with section 34 and section 120B IPC. High Court acquitted accused no. l; E 
however, it upheld the conviction of others. Hence, the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the evidence is consistent and is 
corroborated by the medical evidence. A few mere minor discrepancies here F 
and there do not help the case of the appellant. 1295-C) 
1.2. There are two eye witnesses-PW4 and PWS. PW4 clearly identified 
the appellant as the unknown man in his deposition before the trial court, 
and there is no reason why PW 4 should falsely implicate him. The evidence 
of PW4 is also corroborated by the evidence of PWS, who is a neutral person G 
being the driver of the Vehicle. There was no reason for PWS to falsely 
implicate the appellant. PWS clearly stated in his evidence that the appellant 
inflicted wounds on the deceased. The evidence of PW4 and PWS finds further 
corroboration in the dying declaration made by the deceased to PW6. 
(294-D-GJ 
291 
H 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
1.3. The Doctor only stated that it was possible that the deceased may 
have become unconscious instantneously after sustaining the wounds. 
However, there is a diference between something being possible and something 
being probable or certain. PW6 before whom the dying declaration was 
recorded, stated that the deceased had given his dying declaration before he 
B reached the hospital. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the dying 
declaration. (295-A-C) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 
2006. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 17-10-2005 of the High Court 
C of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Cr!. A. No. 60 of 1992. 
Sudhanshu Choudhary and Naresh Kumar for the Appellant. 
V.N. Raghupathy (for Aniruddha P. Mayee), for the Respondent. 
D 
The Judgment of the Com1 was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. This appeal has been filed against the 
impugned judgment and order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) 
dated 17.10.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1992 by which the High Court 
has affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court by 
E judgment dated 20.2.1992 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as well 
as fine of Rs.200/-, in default of which two months R.l.. was also awarded. 
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
There were four accused originally before the Trial Court namely ( l) 
F Anil Shivram Pawar, (2) Manila! Hiraram Chaudhari, (3) Premraj Hiraram 
Chaudhari and (4) Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe (the appellant in the present 
case.) All the four accused had been convicted by the Trial Court but in 
appeal the High Court acquitted accused no. l but maintained the conviction 
of accused no. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 l.P.C. In the 
present case the appellant is only accused no. 4 Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe 
G @Bapu. 
The gist of the prosecution case is that on 13.2.1991 Bhaulal Jadhav the 
deceased along with PW4 Lotu Eko Patil was proceeding from Phuphanagari 
to Jalgaon on bike Bajaj M-80 and when they reached on a way to Jalgaon 
near Khedi Phata at a distance of 3 kms. the appellants, who were in Maruti 
H Van parked by the side ofroad got down. It is further alleged that t.he accused 
GANGA RAM SHANTA RMI SALUNKHE •'. THE ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J.] 293 
no. 2, 3 and 4 then stopped vehicle on which Shaula! and PW4 were 

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