LexLATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 709 LATESH @ DADU BABURAO KARLEKAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2015) JANUARY 30, 2018 [N. V. RAMANA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 307 – Prosecution case that six accused persons armed with various weapons, on account of some old enmity, assaulted PW-2 and his brother – A-1 was caught red-handed but other accused persons managed to flee from the spot – Injured were taken to hospital where brother of PW-2 succumbed to the injuries, however, PW-2 survived – Trial court and High Court convicted all the accused on charges of murder and attempt to murder – SLP preferred by A-4 dismissed by another Bench of Supreme Court – Instant appeal concerned with the appeals filed by the other accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 – Whether the Courts below were right in convicting the accused- appellants and whether the prosecution proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Deceased, the brother of PW-2, gave statement to the police – In the said statement the deceased did not state the names of A-2 and A-3 – Also, PW-2 in the supplementary statement stated names of A-2 and A-3, but he neither specifically attributed any overt acts to accused nor attributed any weapon used by them – Further, neither there was any recovery of weapon nor there was any expert opinion against A-2 and A-3 – Oral testimony of PW-2 without independent corroboration cannot be basis for the conviction – Both the Courts went wrong in finding A- 2 and A-3 guilty – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A-2 and A-3 beyond all reasonable doubt – Insofar as A-1 is concerned, PW-18-doctor who examined the body of the deceased stated that 27 injuries were received by the deceased – The injuries were attributable to a sharp weapon – A-1 was caught red-handed with chopper (sharp weapon) which is corroborated with the evidence of PWs, panch witness for the arrest, seizure of weapons, clothes and also in terms of expert evidence – Thus, prosecution successfully proved the guilt of A-1 beyond reasonable doubt – Insofar as 709 [2018] 1 S.C.R. 709 A B C D E F G H 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R. involvement of accused A-5 and A-6 is concerned, they are named in the FIR as well as in the alleged oral declaration by the deceased – Evidence of the doctor and injuries sustained by the deceased clearly established the guilt of the A-5 and A-6 – Prosecution established the fact of involvement and the guilt of accused A-5 and A-6 beyond reasonable doubt –Conviction and sentence against A-2, A-3 set aside – However, conviction and sentence u/s.302 IPC w.r.t. A-1 and conviction and sentence u/s.307 r/w.34 IPC w.r.t A-5 and A-6 maintained. Evidence – Oral evidence and medical evidence – Which one has precedence over the other – Held: Oral evidence takes precedence over the medical evidence unless the latter completely refutes any possibility of such occurrence. Evidence – Evidential standards – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Held: The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt – Accused has a profound right not to be convicted for an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – The law does not permit the court to convict the accused based on suspicion or on the basis of preponderance of probability. Evidence – Test Identification Parade – Necessity of – Held: The necessity of holding Test Identification Parade arises only when the accused are not previously known to each other – The Test identification Parade is not a substantial piece of evidence, but is useful for corroboration with the other evidence – It is a rule of prudence – The Test Identification Parade, even if it is held may not be considered in all cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be sustained. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The deceased (brother of PW-2) gave statement to the police, and the said statement is not part of the prosecution evidence. In the said statement, the deceased has not stated the names of accused (A-2 and A-3), secondly PW-2 in the supplementary statement stated their names, but he has not specifically attributed any weapon used by him. PW-11 has also not attributed any overt acts to accused A-2 and A-3. During investigation, the clothes of PWs. 2 and 3 were sent for expert A B C D E F G H 711 opinion and it discloses that there were no blood stains on the clothes. No we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.