KRISHNA GOVIND PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 23-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
JonuarJ, 23. 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORtS[l964]VOL, 
KRISHNA GOVIND PATIL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(S.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
and J. R. MuDHOI.KAR, JJ.) 
Criminal Law-Four person.• charged with 
sub,•tantive 
offence read with e, 
34-Three acquitted-Conriclion of one 
un<kr eub•tantive offence read with •· 34-Proprit.ty of-Different 
•ituaJions coruitlered-lndian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 
... 34, 302. 
The four accused pe,.ons stood their trial before the 
Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of one Vishwanath, 
The char'!" against th•m was that they in view of their common 
grudg~ a~a.irut the deceased, combin~d together and did away 
with the dccca.ed. They were ehar~ed under s. 302 read with 
s, 31 of the India11 
Penal <Ade and were al«> 'cparately 
charged under s. 302 of the l'cual Code. All pleaded not guilty 
to the charge and accused I, 3 and 4 pleaded a 1i6i, while 
accused 2 raised a pica of private defence. The learned 
Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused on the 
ground that the prosecution witnesses Wt're not speaking the 
truth and the ve,.ion given by accused 2 was the probable one, 
The State preferred an appeal to the High Court against the order 
of acquittal under s. 302, read with s. 34, but not against the 
acquittal under s. 302 of the Pena I Code. The High Co11rt 
acquitted accused I, 3 and 4 on the ground that it was doubt-
ful whether any one of them participated in the comn1issiou 
of the offence and •:onvicted accu5'd 2 on the ground that one 
or more of them might have participated in the offence. 
Accused 2, the appellant, therefore, filed this appeal a11d 
contended that when three of the four named accused, who were 
charged under s. 302, read with s. 34, were acquitted, the 
court could not convict only one of the accused on the basis of 
const111ctive liability. 
Held, that before a court could convict a person u11tlcr 
s. 302, read with s. 34, it should come to a definite conclusion 
that the said person had a prior concert with one or more other 
penons, named or unnann:d, for comn1itting lhe said offence. 
Held, further, that \vhen accused were acquittr.d either on 
the ground that the evidence was not acceptable or by giving 
1 $.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
679 
benefit of doubt to them, the result in law would be the same : 
it would mean that they did not take part in the offence. The 
effect of the acquittal of accused 1, 3 and 4 is that they did 
not conjointly act with accused 2 in committing the murder. 
If they did not act conjointly with the appellant, he could not 
have acted .conjointly with them. The judgment of the High 
Court docs not indicate that persons other th.'ln the said accused 
participated in the offence, nor is there any evidence in that 
regard, therefore, the conviction of the appellant must be set 
aside. 
Mohan Sinyh v. St£tte of Punjab, [19G2] Supp. 3 S. C.R. 
848, held inapplicable. 
CRIJHCNAL APPELLATE]URJSDIC'l'ION: Criminal 
Appeal No. ~O l of mu~. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment 
and order dated February 20, 1962, of the Bombay 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1+05 of 1961. 
C. L. 8<'reen, for the appellant. 
JI. U. Kh1mnn and H. ll. JJhebnr, for the 
respondent. 
1963. January 23. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SuBBA RAo, .J.-This appeal by special leave 
is directed against the judgment of a division Bench 
of the Bombay High Court setting aside the order 
of acquittal made by the Additional Sessions Judge, 
Kolaba,. and convicting the appellant under s. 302, 
read with s. 34, of the Indian Penal Code and 
sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 
The case of the prosecution may be briel!y 
stated. In the year 195!.J, two persons by name 
Ramachandra Bu<lhya 
and Govind Dliaya Wei·e 
murdered by some people. 
In all J l accused, inclu· 
ding one Dcoram Maruti Patil, were brought to 
1963 
Kri.oh11a Govinrl Patil 
v. 
Statt of /11aharashtra 
Subba Rar>, J. 
I
.. .. 
680. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] vot. 
'... 
\ 1953 
trial; and out of them 8 accused;'}iid~di~g the said 
Kri.>hn; Got·inJ Pa•;1 
Deoram Maruti Patil, were acquitted. During that 
v. 
trial Deoram Maruti Patil's uncle, by name Vishwa· 
Slal_e oj J.fo.harashlra 
h 
. l 
nat , active y helped Deoram l\faruti Patil in the 
Subba Rao, J. 
conduct of his· defence. Accused I and 2 in the 
present case are the sons of Govind Dhaya ·and . 
accused 3 ; and 4 . are the nephews of Ramachandra 
· - Budhya. They bore a

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