MANOJ@ BHAU AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 08-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANOJ@ BHAU AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 8, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
A 
Penal Code 1860-Sections 147,148 and 302 read with Section 149-
Common intention or object-Failure of the prosecution to ascribe specific 
role played by some of the accused persons-Effect of-Six accused persons 
faced trial for causing multiple injuries to the deceased with the respective C 
weapons in their hands-No specific overt act ascribed to A2 and A3 except 
general version that all accused persons surrounded and assaulted the 
deceased-Eye witnesses assigning specific role played by the other accused 
persons-Held, it would be unsafe to convict A2 and A3 by taking recourse 
to Section 149 !PC as necessary ingredients to attract Section 149 are D 
totally absent-Convictions of remaining accused upheld. 
Constitution of India-Article 136-Re-appreciation of evidence by 
this Court-Evidence could be scrutinised to find out whether exaggerations 
and embellishments render the entire evidence untrustworthy. 
Criminal Procedure Code, !973-Section 154~FIR-Held, need not 
been encyclopedia of evidence-Basic prosecution case needs to be given in 
it. 
E 
The relationship between the deceased and the appellants were strained 
due to political rivalry. On the day of occurrence, the deceased and his F 
parents were sitting on the terrace when the appellants along with three 
other accused entered the courtyard and challenged the deceased to come 
down. When deceased came down, all the accused surrounded the deceased 
and assaulted him with gupti, knife, hockey sticks and motor cycle chain on 
account of which the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. On G 
these facts the trial court convicted all the six accused under Sections 147, 
148 and 302 read with_ Section 149 IPC. On appeal the High Court affirmed 
the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The present appeal 
preferred only by three accused persons Al to A3. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
487 
H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. In view of the evidence on record the two courts below 
rightly concluded that Al holding a gupti in his hand, dealt several blows 
on the deceased as a result of which he ultimately died. But so far as A 2 
and A 3 are concer;1ed the prosecution case as against them cannot be said 
to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Excepting a bald, vague and 
B general statement that all the accused surrounded and assaulted, while 
ascribing a positive role to different accused persons as to how and with what 
weapon they had assaulted the deceased and how many blows had been given, 
so far as A 2 and A 3 are concerned, there is no whisper either by PW l 
or PW 8. In her earliest statement to the police PW 8 had not stated that 
A2 and A 3 were having a stick and motorcycle chain in their hands. In this 
C sfate of affairs it would be unsafe to convict A 2 and A 3 by taking recourse 
to Section 149 IPC as the necessary ingredients to attract the said section 
as against A 2 and A 3 are totally absent. [494-E-G) 
1.2. A 2 and A 3 are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 
But so far a Al is concerned, he is convic!ed along with the non-appealing 
D accused persons under Sections 302/34 IPC and their sentence of 
imprisonment for life is affirmed. [494-H; 495-A] 
2. Ordinarily this Cour~ does not re-appreciate the evidence when two 
courts have already scanned and believed the same. But the Court can 
scrutinise the evidence of the witnesses to find out whether the so called 
E 
exaggerations and embellishments really pertain to the basic prosecution 
case so that the entire evidence has to be discarded as being untrustworthy 
or the Court would be justified in embarking upon an enquiry for the 
purpose of separating the chaff from the grain and accept the grain to base 
the conviction. [497-G-H) 
F 
3. It is well settled that tile First Information Report need not be an 
encyclopedia of the evidence and what is required to be stated is the basic· 
prosecution case. Judged from that stand point no grievance can he made in 
respect of the First Information Report that was given by PW 1. [492-C] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18/19.12.91 of the Bombay High 
Court in Cr!. A. No. 237 of 1991. 
H 
U.R. Lalit, Ms. J.S. Wad, Manoj Wad and Ashish. Wad for the Appellants. 
MANOJ@ BHAU v. STATE OF MAHARASH

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