MAYAKAUR BALDEVSINGH SARDAR AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 08-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAY AKAUR BALDEVSINGH SARDAR AND ANR. 
~ ' 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
OCTOBER 8, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.] 
~-
Penal Code, 1860-s. 302134-Prosecutionfor murder and 
attempt to murder-Members of parental family causing death of the 
c members of matrimonial family of the injured eye-l-Yitness-Motive for 
the assault being eye-witness marrying a person.from lower caste-
Severe injuries sustained by the eye-witness-As per medical evidence 
she was under tremendous shock-Disclosure of the names of the 
accused after eight days of the incident-Arrest of the accused much 
D before the disclosure-One of the accused not belonging to the parental 
family of the witness-Trial Court acquitting two accused and 
r--
convicting six accused u/ss 302/J 20B and 307 IJ 20B-Death sentence 
to four and life imprisonment to two accused-In appeal difference of 
opinion between the judges of Division Bench of High Court-After 
E reference of the matter to third judge, conviction unders 302134 and 
sentence for life imprisonment-Appeal of accused as well as State-
Held: One of the accused who did not belong to the accused family 
acquitted, as in the facts of the case his participation is doubtful-Rest 
of the accused liable to be convicted-Evidence of the eye-witness is 
'r ,.,. 
F trustworthy-Delay in disclosure of the names of the accused by her 
is justified in view of her relationship with the accused and her mental 
condition-Common intention on the part of the accused is proved-
In view of the facts of the case the case falls in the category of rarest 
of rare cases-However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, life 
G sentence is not reversed-Sentencing. 
J.... 
The accused persons in the present appeal were prosecuted for 
murder of four persons (deceased) and for attempt to murder PW-
1. Prosecution case was that PW-1 was the daughter of accused Nos. 
H 
752 
MAYAKAURBALDEVSINGHSARDARv. STATE 
753 
1and8. She entered into secret marriage with one of the deceased. A 
When she disclosed the same to her parents, it was not accepted as 
the deceased was from a lower caste and financially weak. PW-1 left 
her parental house and settled in her husband and in-laws house. 
PW-1 was repeatedly threatened by her parents and relatives. 
Accused No. 1 (mother) and accused No. 2 (maternal aunt) B 
demanded PW-1, the ornaments which she was wearing when she 
left the house. On the day of the incident, PW-1 was informed that 
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had come to visit her. They were invited to 
her room on first floor. There PW-1 handed over all the ornaments. 
She was told that her maternal uncle (accused No. 3) had also come c 
to see her. In the meantime when husband of PW.1 (deceased) went 
to balcony for some work, he saw some persons with weapons 
hanging around suspiciously. Apprehending danger, he asked his 
brother (deceased) to call his friends. When his brother went out, 
soon thereafter returned with a patch of blood. PW. 1 saw accused D 
Nos. 3,4,5,6, 7 and 8 climbing the stairs armed with weapons. When 
from balcony, she shouted for help, somebody pushed her down and 
she fell on the ground floor. Sh.e went crawling to a neighbour, who 
informed the police. On the site, police found that husband, father-
in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of PW 1 were killed. FIR E 
was registered. 
Trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 7 and 8. Rest of the accused 
were convicted u/ss. 302, 307 r/w s.120B IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 
2 were sentenced to life imprisonment and accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 
6 were sentenced to death. 
F 
In High court accused filed appeals and trial Judge made death 
reference. There was difference of opinion between the two judges 
of the Division Bench, regarding death sentence and conviction of 
accused No. 5. Matter was referred to third judge, who ordered 
~-
acquittal of the accused u/s 302/120B, 307 /120B and 307 /34 IPC and G 
directing their conviction u/s 302/34. They were sentenced to life 
imprisonment. Hence the two appeals, one by the accused against 
conviction, another by the State, praying for death sentence. 
H 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Accused persons contended that PW-1 the solitary eye-witness 
cannot be said to have seen the incident as she did not disclose the 
names of the accused till the 8th day from the date of the incident; 
that arrest of accused long before revelation of the same by PW 1 
was suspicious; that in the facts of the case, common inte

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