NANA KESHAV LAGAD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 03-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD, F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 606 
NANA KESHAV LAGAD 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1010 of 2008) 
JULY 3, 2013 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND FAKKIR 
MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 and s.324 rlw s.34 -
C Murder - Common intention - Dispute over land - Leading to 
assault with cycle chain and stone - Multiple injuries to 
complainant (PW4) and death of his father - Conviction of 
accused-appellants - Justification - Held: On facts, justified -
The conviction was not based on the solitary statement of 
o PW4 alone - The evidence of PW4, read along with the 
version of PW5 and medical evidence, as well as the expert 
opinion, discloses the involvement of the appellants in the 
crime, apart from their common intention to eliminate the 
deceased, as well as PW4 - -PW4 fortunately escaped though 
E he also suffered multiple injuries, which ultimately happened 
to be not serious - In the circumstances, it cannot be said that 
s. 34 was not attracted -The medical evidence substantially 
establishes the intention of the accused to eliminate the 
deceased and the injuries sustained by the deceased 
F discloses the coordinated vengeance with which the assault 
was caused by the appellants, in order to ensure that the 
deceased did not survive. 
Witness - Appreciation of - · Credibility - Murder case -
Number of accused - In his oral evidence before the Court, 
G PW4-complainant fully supported his version, barring the 
presence of two accused - PW4 admitted that those two 
accused were not present at the time of the incident and to 
that extent, his statement in the complaint was incorrect -
H 
606 
NANA KESHAV LAGAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
607 
Held: However, on that score, it cannot bJ3 held that the whole 
A 
of the evidence of PW4 has to be rejected - Since the 
evidence of PW4 in every other respect fully supports his 
version in the complaint and which was also to a very great 
extent supported by the medical evidence and version of 
another eyewitness PW5, no reason to disbelieve his version 
B 
in order to reject the case of the prosecution. 
Witness - Panch witness - Appreciation - Held: Merely 
because the panch witness in question had tendered 
evidence in another case, it cannot be held that on that score 
C 
alone his evidence should be rejected - Version of the said 
witness was truthfully and fully corroborated, and hence, was 
acceptable. 
Evidence - Murder case - Defence plea with reference to 
bloodstains found on the clothes of the accused that the 
D 
prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the same through 
independent evidence - Held: Not tenable - It was for the 
accused-appellants to have explained as to how the clothes 
wom by them contained human blood- In s.313 questioning, 
no explanation was forthcoming from the appellants - Code 
E 
of Criminal Proccedure, 1973 - s.313. 
The accused party as well as the complainant party 
were residents of the same village; and owned and 
possessed agricultural lands adjacent to each other. 
F 
There were disputes between them, as regards the use 
of way to their respective lands. It was alleged that on 
account of the said enmity, the accused persons 
attacked PW4-complainant and his father with cycle chain 
and stone, as a result of which the father of PW4 G 
sustained bleeding injuries over his head and other parts 
of the body, and died. PW4 also was injured in the 
incident. 
The _trial-coltrt conviclea Ifie-accusect:.app·euants 
under Section 302 read with Sectio11 34 and Section 324 
H 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A read with Section-34 of 1.P.C, and sentenced them to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction 
and sentence was affirmed by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal, the appellants challenged their 
B conviction contending that the same was mainly based 
on the sole eye-witness, P.W.4 and having regard to the 
various discrepancies in his evidence, he could not have 
been present and witnessed the incident. The appellants 
contended that in the F.l.R., P.W.4 named six persons, 
c while in his oral evidence, he left out two of the names; 
and that the evidence of P.W.3, a panch witness for the 
recovery of cycle chain and stone, was not fully 
established. It was further contended that the trial Court 
without any supporting expert evidence concluded that 
0 the shirt of two accused contained human blood, which 
was not true; and that Section 34 of 1.P.C. was not 

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