KHASHABA MARUTI SHELKE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 23-07-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1·~ 
266 
KHASHABA MARUTI SHELKE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
July 23, 1973 
(P, JAGANMO!IAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J 
Indian Penal Code-S. 302 read with ss. 307, 333 a1.d 332 and ss. 3, 4(b), 
S oj the Explosive Substances Act, and ss. 25, 27 of the Arm.J Act-Conviction 
on circatnstantial evidence-When conclusive. 
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge for offences under s. 302 
l.P.C. on two counts for causing the death of a Head Constable and another 
and sentenced to death on each count. The appellant was further convicted 
under s. 307 I.P.C. for attempt to murder a P. S. I. and was sentenced to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. He was also convicted 
under ss. 333, 332 J.P.C. and ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and ss. 3, 4(b) 
and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and separate sentences were passed. 
On 
appeal and reference to the High Court. the judgment of the learned Sessions 
Judge was affirmed. The High Court maintained the conviction of the appe}lant 
relying upon circumstantial evidence. 
The appellant came before this Court by special leave. 
The prosecution case was that a: hand-grenade was exploded in the house 
of one A when the police party headed by a Sub-Inspector arrived there with 
a view to apprehend the appellant and as a result of the explosion two persons, 
including a Head Constahle, received fatal injuries and other police officials 
receiv.ed serious injuries-. 
The question was whether the appellaD.t possessed 
the hand-grenade in question and exploded the same, as a result of Which, 
injuries were caused to the two deceased persons and the different police 
()tficials. 
A1lowing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) The case against the appellant had not been proved by the 
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and the conviction of the accused, 
therefore, must be set aside. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(ii) There is no direct evidence as to the fact that the appellant was• seen 
F 
carrying a hand-grenade or that he exploded the hand-grenade. The circum-
stances relied upon by the High Court in convicting the appellant do not 
singly or cumulatively show that it was the appelJant who exploded the hand-
grenade. 
From the evidence, there is nothing to rule out the possibility of the 
hand-grenade having been exploded not by the 
appellant but by one of his 
companions. There is no direct evidence as to who exploded the Jland-grenade. 
(iii) Further, in the F.I.R. there was no mention of a hand-grenade. 
All 
that was mentioned in the said report was that there was firing from inside· 
G 
but the medical evidence revealed that there was no bullet injury on any of 
the injured persons. 
(iv) In order to base the conviction of an 
accused 
on 
circumstantial 
evidence, the Court must be certain that the circumstanlial evidence is of such 
a character as is consistent only with the 
guilt of the 
accused. The circum-
stances must show that within all reasonable probability, the impugned act 
mu!lt . have bee~ do~e by the accu;;e~. If two inferences are possible from 
H 
the ctrcumstant1al evidence-one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the 
other, also plausible, that the commission of the crime was the act of someone 
else-the circumstantial evidence would not warrant the conviction 
of 
the 
µccused. [273D] 
A 
K. M. SHELKE v. MAHARASHTRA (Khanna, J.) 
267 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal Appeal No. 223 
of 1972. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated Feb-
ruary 10 & 11, 1972 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Cr. A. 
No. 1416 of 1971. 
B 
M. L. Srivastava, for the appellant. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J.-Khashaba Maruti Shelke (33) 
along with eight 
others was tried in the court of Sessions Judge Sangli for offences 
under section 302/34, 307 /34, 324/34 and 333/34 Indian 
Penal 
Code section 25 of Arms Act read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, 
secti~n 27 Arms Act read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, section 
3 Explosive Substances Act read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, 
section 4 Explosive Substances Act read with section 34 Indian Penal 
Code. section 5 Explosive Substances Act read with section 34 Indian 
Penal Code and section 6 Explosive Substances Act read with section 
34 Indian Penal Code. 
In the alternative, there were charges against 
the accused for the above offences read with section 149 Indian Penal 
Code. Learned Se

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