MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 10-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 158 
A 
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2007) 
B 
APRIL 10, 2008 
(P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) 
~ . 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - High Court reversing 
the judgment of acquittal passed by trial court and convicting 
the accused uls 302 /PC - Held: On facts of the case, 
interference by High Court was whol/y justified and warranted 
- Findings recorded by High Court do not suffer from any 
manifest error or improper and misappreciation of evidence 
D on record. 
Penal Code, 1860: 
.., ' 
s. 302 - Accused stabbing to death his former beloved in 
presence of her husband and mother and other eye-witness -
E A/so causing injuries to husband and mother of deceased -
Trial Court acquitting the accused disbelieving the injured and 
other eye-witnesses for being related witnesses as a/so on the 
ground that no independent witness was examined -Acquittal 
set aside and accused convicted by High Court - Held: Mere 
F relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness - In 
such cases Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse 
evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible - Further, 
Testimony of witnesses who received injuries in the 
occurrence, if found trustworthy, cannot be discarded merely 
G for non-examination of independent witnesses - High Court 
on reappraisal and reassessment of entire evidence on record 
has rightly held the accused gwlty u/s 302 /PC and sentenced 
him to imprisonment for life - Evidence - Testimony of related 
witnesses and hostile witnesses - Evidentiary value of - Non-
" ~ 
H 
158 
,r y 
MAHESH S/O.JANARDHAN GONNADE v. STATE OF 
159 
MAHARASHTRA 
examination of independent witnesses - Effect of. 
A 
The accused-appellant was prosecuted for murder 
of 'S', the wife of P.W.8, and causing injuries to P.W.8 and 
his mother-in-law,'N'. According to the prosecution case, 
the accused was in love with the deceased prior to her ·s 
marriage with P.W.8. A few days prior to the marriage, the 
accused went to the house of P.W.8 and disclosed the 
fact to him and threatened him in presence of his brother 
(P.W.7) with dire consequences if he married 'S'. However, 
the marriage of 'S' with P.W.8 took place. On the day of the 
incident P.W.8 and 'S' were at the house of his mother-in-
C 
law 'N'. In the evening around 5.00 or 5.30 all the three 
along with the nephew (PW.16) and niece (PW 4) of 'S' 
went for evening walk towards the river side. While 
returning, they saw the accused and PW5 going on a 
motor cycle towards the river bridge. When 'N' and party D 
reached near her house, P.W.8 heard a gunshot fired at 
him from behind and he fell down. He saw the accused 
keeping the gun aside, rushing towards his wife and 
stabbing her on head, neck and back as a result of which · 
she collapsed. When 'N' tried to intervene, the accused E 
inflicted knife blows on her also. The accused, noticing 
the people gathering at the scene of occurrence, fled away. 
P.W.1, a medical practitioner, whose dispensary was 
nearby reached the spot and took all the three injured to 
the Government Hospital where wife of P.W.8 died at about F 
7.30 p.m. the same day. P.W.8 and 'N' were referred to the 
Medical College. PWs 4 and 16 went to the house of PW.6, 
the grandfather of 'S', and narrated the incident to him. 
PW.6 went to the scene of occurrence and on coming to 
know that the injured had been taken to the hospital, G 
rushed to the hospital where he saw the victims lying 
injured and 'S' as unconscious. The accused was arrested 
the same day and at his instance weapons of the crime, a 
gun and a knife, were stated to have been recovered. 
The trial Court did not believe the prosecution case 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A and acquitted the accused of all the charges. On appeal 
by the State, the High Court found that 'N' had died during 
the pendency of the trial and she could not be examined 
as a witness. Charges against the accused u/s.324 for 
causing knife injuries to 'N' and u/s.307 for causing 
B gunshot injuries to P.W.8 were not proved and, therefore, 
he was acquitted of both the charges. However, the High 
Court found the charge of murder of 'S' to ·have been 
proved against the accused and convicted and sentenced 
him u/s.302 IPC. 
C 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused it was 
contended for the appellant that the High Court 
commit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.