LexNARAYAN MANIKRAO SALGAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 8 S.C.R. 170 NARAYAN MANIKRAO SALGAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2008 etc.) AUGUST 28, 2012 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L GOKHALE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- ss. 3261149, 148, 3411149 and 3231 149 - Prosecution of accused u/ss. 148,3021149,3411149 and C 3231149 - Death of one caused - Two eye-witnesses - Two dying declarations - Recovery of blood-staineditems, blood- stained weapons and blood-stained clothes of accused - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: The prosecution evidence leads to a conclusion, beyond D reasonable doubt that. the deceased was victim of premeditated assault by the appellants-accused - However, in view of the nature of weapons and injuries, accused cannot be said to have shared common object of causing the murder - Since the injuries were grievous in nature, conviction u/s. E 302 altered to under s. 326 rlw s. 149 - Conviction on other counts maintained. Constitution of India, 1950- Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - Power under - To interfere with concurrent findings of facts - Held: Court not to interfere with concurrent findings F of fact save in exceptional circumstances - Interference permissible only when High Court is found to have acted perversely or disregarded any vital piece of evidence which would shake the very foundation of prosecution case. G The appellant-accused alongwith others was prosecuted ulss. 148, 3021149, 3411149 and 3231149 IPC for having caused death of one person. The prosecution case was that PW-1 (wife of the victim) and PW-2 were the eye-witnesses to the incident. PW-1 informed the H 170 NARAYAN MANIKRAO SALGAR v. STATE OF 171 MAHARASHTRA police after the incident. The victim told his father (PW-7) A naming all the accused as assailants. The deceased was taken to hospital by the police in injured condition. There, on certification by the doctor (PW-8), the deceased made a statement to PW-9 (PSI) incriminating all the accused by name. Eventually he succumbed to the injuries. The B statement of the deceased was treated as dying declaration. Trial court convicted the accused except accused Nos. 9 and 11 of all the charges. High Court upheld the order of trial court. However, the appeal against accused Nos. 2 and 10 abated because of their c death. The present appeals were filed against the order of High Court Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Even though the powers of this Court under D Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide, but it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, save in exceptional circumstances. It would interfere in the findings recorded by the trial court as well as the High Court if it is found that the High Court has acted E perversely and/or disregarded any vital piece of evidence which would shake the very foundation of the prosecution case. In other words, this Court would exercise the powers under Article 136 where the conclusion of the High Court is manifestly perverse and F unsupportable on the evidence on record. [Para 14] [184- G-H; 185-A] 2.1. The appellants have failed to point out any infirmity in the conclusions recorded by the Sessions · Court as well as the High Court with regard to the assault. G On this issue, both the judgments do not suffer from any · such perversity, which would shock the conscious of this Court. The entire prosecution evidence when considered from all angles leads to a conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt, that the deceased was a victim of a premeditated H 172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. A assault by all the appellants with their respective weapons. It cannot be said that thtl appellants have been falsely implicated, or that the assault did not take place in the manner projected by the prosecution. [Paras 19 and 15] (187-E-F; 185-A-B] B 2.2. The narration of the events by PW1 was not shaken when she was subjected to a lengthy cross- examination by different counsel for all the accused. Her evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that she did not name each and every accused person at the first C opportunity, when she went to the Police Station. Her plight at such a situation is not difficult to imagine. She had done whatever was feasible to report the matter to her father-in-law. She then proceeded to inform the police, without wasting any time. She has narrated the D entire sequence of events as a witness in court. She has gi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.