MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 267 · Decided: 10-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
267
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1479 of 2015)
JULY 10, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148 and 302 r/w s.149 – Faction
rivalry – Murder – Appeal against conviction – On the fateful day,
victim-deceased was lying on the cot in the courtyard and PWs 3
and 4 were sitting near him – PW-2 went inside and was taking
meal – Appellants along with other accused armed with deadly
weapons like swords, knife, sticks and motor cycle chain came to
the courtyard of the house of deceased – A-3 and  A-8 assaulted
the deceased with sword on his head, A-5 attacked with sword on
his legs, A-7 attacked with knife on his foot and legs – Other accused
attacked deceased with motor cycle chain and sticks – PW- 3 and 4
got frightened and ran inside the house and stood near the window
and witnessed the incident – Deceased was grievously injured and
was rushed to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries – Trial
court held that prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of accused
beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused – High Court
held that evidence of PWs 2 to 4 as to the overt act of accused was
consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of
weapons and reversed the acquittal of all accused except A-2 – On
appeal, plea of appellants was that evidence of PW-2 was not
believable as he was present in the house and did not go to rescue
his brother and remained mute spectator – Held: Evidence of witness
is not to be disbelieved simply because he has not reacted in a
particular manner – Likewise, the relationship of PW-2 with the
deceased cannot be the reason for doubting the testimony of PW-2
– Medical evidence also lent assurance to the evidence of PWs 2 to
4 – Prompt registration of FIR and recovery of incriminating weapons
on disclosure statements of accused also strengthened the
prosecution case – Trial court did not properly appreciate the
evidence and its findings are perverse – When the approach of the
trial court is perverse, in an appeal against the order of acquittal,
   [2018] 9 S.C.R. 267
   267
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence –
As observed by the High Court, the trial court gave importance to
insignificant aspects like “smearing of the thighs and legs of the
body with mud” and the conduct of the witnesses as to why they
have not reacted in a particular manner and while doing so, the
trial court failed to appreciate the substratum of the prosecution
case – High Court on being satisfied that the conclusion reached
by the trial court was erroneous reversed the order of acquittal
recorded by the trial court – There is no ground to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court – The conviction of the appellants under
s.302 r/w s.149 is confirmed and the sentence of life imprisonment
imposed upon each of them is confirmed.
Criminal Law – Evidence – FIR – Non-mention of names of
eye-witnesses in FIR – Effect on prosecution case – Evidence of
PWs 3 and 4 is sought to be assailed on the ground that their names
were not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and that
they are interested witnesses – Held: Deceased was critically injured
and when he was taken to the police station, on seeing his serious
condition, deceased was sent to the hospital along with police
constable – PW-2 remained in the police station to lodge the
complaint and his statement was recorded – His brother having been
critically injured, PW-2 must have been in a disturbed mind and
must have been in a hurry to rush to the hospital to save his brother
– Thus, non-mention of the names of eye witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) in
the FIR should be examined in the situation in which PW-2 was
placed – FIR..
Evidence – Reaction of witness in a particular manner – Held:
On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way and their
evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has not
acted in a particular manner – Witness.
Appeal – Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference,
discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1.1 FIR is not an encyclopedia which is expected
to contain all the details of the prosecution case.  It may be
sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case about the
occurrence appear. Omission as to the names of the assailants or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
269
the witnesses may not all the times be fatal to the pr

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